Politics: American Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Georgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Atlanta task force. Atlanta task force To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate Atlanta related articles from Unassessed Atlanta articles and Category:Unknown-importance Atlanta articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Atlanta articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Infobox : Atlanta articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Atlanta Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Atlanta Stubs : Work on stubs in Category:Atlanta stubs. Other : * Help out with articles placed in Category:Atlanta articles needing attention Add {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=|importance=|atlanta=|atlanta-importance=}} project banner to Atlanta-related articles to talk pages and assess. Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality. Get Atlanta into Featured article status. Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

redirect makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by FideKoeln (talk • contribs) 17:10, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

The redirect makes sense as a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct page makes more sense I guess. You are welcome to help improve it --FideKoeln (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to get more news coverage, so worth including as distinct page, working on improving it --Anupamtree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for an admin to restore this as a redirect, per my first edit. It's not a notable topic for a standalone page, but it's a reasonable search term for a topic that may become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested NuclearWarfare review their close

I am curious as to your reasoning here. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that NPOL does apply in this case (8 delete or redirect and protect) vs 4 Keeps of which one is the SPA author and one is two are revived dormant accounts. Even discounting that the consensus that NPOL applies seems overwhelming. Thank you. [1]

as the initial step in deletion review. Jbh ^Talk 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with you. How does this subject meet GNG when most of the coverage is of the election, not the candidate in the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a close challenge that is pretty much irrelevant. What is at issue is the assessment of the consensus which existed at the time of the closing which seemed to be clearly that the article should be redirected and protected until/unless he wins per NPOL. The close seems to me to be a failure to properly assess the existing consensus ant to rather be a super-vote.

NW has not edited since the close so I will wait until tomorrow to open a deletion review so they have time to respond to my inquiry on their talk page. Jbh ^Talk 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote. It should be tied to the better policy argument. Moreover, the vote was 4-8. I would suggest that if anything, it should be relisted to allow more editors to take part.Casprings (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of the keep votes:

"Keep Favored candidate on the democratic side, leading the polls, and generating national press, endorsements, and fundraising."

"Strong Keep Mr. Ossoff is a notable public figure and the upcoming election will be a major event in American politics. He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN."

There's no good policy argument there. The first one cites "national press" but it's not the in depth type required for GNG. For the second, again the coverage is about the election and transient, not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note :I have opened a deletion review [2] on this topic. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since @Muboshgu: and I disagree on this, I thought we should discuss it on the talk page and seek consensus. I agree that anything with strong national ties should have the date format for that country, but I don't see the point in doing so for citations. Is it really necessary to say that an article was accessed on "March 28, 2017" versus "28 March 2017"? Looking at MOS:RETAIN, I don't see the point in deliberately changing all of the citation formats to one particular form. Werónika (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Yes, date formats need to be consistent throughout the page, and that includes citations. The page was created in mdy format, and it already had the {{use mdy dates}} template at the top. This an article about an American subject, and so the mdy format should be used throughout per MOS:DATETIES. Why would you undo the edit? If you "don't see the point" in changing citation dates, why would you feel that you needed to change them back? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Werónika: the majority of the dates were in mdy format already, surely if we're following MOS:RETAIN then we should make them all into mdy format? Quasar G ^{t - c} 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: @Quasar G.: I changed them because I didn't see the need to make them? No big, I was just curious what the protocol was (since some of the articles on my watchlist use a variety of different formats). I'm fine with either one, so you know. Good to talk to you! :) Werónika (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information about his parents' religion and having a Bar Mitzvah really necessary?