Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations

In this page, articles being considered for the current Release Version cycle are debated, if a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Review Team has a concern about the importance of a topic. Articles placed on this page are reviewed by a larger group of users, which then decide whether to include the article to the current release, to hold it for a future release cycle, or to fail it completely due to quality concerns (which entails a new nomination after improvements have been made).

==={{la|Article}}===
  Number of votes: 1/0/0
<!-- Remember to update the vote counter when you place your vote! -->
; Hold:
# ~~~~ 
 
; Include:
#

; Fail:
#

; Discussion:
----

There are three sections under which you can place your signature (~~~~). There is the hold section, for articles that you believe do not merit inclusion in the current release version cycle due to importance concerns only. If you believe an article satisfies both quality and importance criteria, comment in the include section.

If you believe an article has issues with quality only, please use the fail section. Ideally, these articles should not come to this page; members of the 1.0 review team are encouraged to fail the articles directly, to allow them to be fixed up for inclusion in the current release cycle.

Don't forget to add a reason to why you commented the way you did, whether it be with your signature, or ideally, in the discussion section of each nomination. The discussion is the most important part of the review process.

Murder of Amanda Dowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/1/0

Hold

1. Walkerma (talk)

Include

1. Lucy-marie (talk)

Fail

Discussion

The article is a good article. HELD - stats indicate that this case is not prominent enough. Walkerma (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Board game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/4

Stub ??. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

Include

Fail

1. -RunningOnBrains 07:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. AdjustShift (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I voted fail because of the two maitenance tags,the one on OR especially swayed my vote. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something that should be included on importance, but it is not up to standard in terms of quality. The tags were also a factor in my vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has a maitenance tag. More citations are required. AdjustShift (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/4

Stub. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

Include

Fail

1. -RunningOnBrains 07:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Important enough to include, but far too short. -RunningOnBrains 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A dab would only be appropriate IMO if each article listed on the page was passed for 0.7 criteria. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Shep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Stepshep. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church (building) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Start. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

1. -RunningOnBrains 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

• A short section on this should exist at main church article; don't believe this is important enough. -RunningOnBrains 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil liberties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/4

Stub, Bias. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

Include

Fail

1. Start, needs a lot of work. Walkerma 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. -RunningOnBrains 07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Walkerma. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• The Civil liberties article needs expansion, and more inline citations are required. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Henn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Original nomination: Definitely deserves an inclusion. Almost GA. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not important enough to be included this time. Walkerma 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

1. Nice article, but not notable enough for this version.-RunningOnBrains 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

South Australian legislative election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Original nomination: The South Australian 2006 election which saw the Liberal Party of Australias worst election result in SA history. Is an FA article. Timeshift 12:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more important SA topics that need to be included first Walkerma 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

1. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

• Its scope is extremely limited, sadly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 3/0/0

Original nomination: This article has recently been upgraded to A-class and is almost certainly going to be upgraded to FA-status. It is currently undergoing FAC and all comments have been addressed, as have those from the WikiProject CVG assessment, which gave it A-class. While some may say that it is not of the utmost importance, the number of really good adventure game articles is quite lacking, so having some good adventure game articles is probably a good move. Quality wise the article is excellent.--Paaerduag 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

1. No interwikis, very few links in, and this does not seem to be a particularly important game. I'd like to see us eventually make a DVD on computer games - let's hold it until then. Walkerma 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The main point for holding is the importance, I can't see this as being of much use in the next release. AndrewJDTALK -- 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Fathers and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/4/1

Hold

1. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

1. We will need some more novels - and this is the greatest work of an important author. Walkerma 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Cricket02 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Walkerma AndrewJDTALK -- 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

1. An important work, but the lack of references is an issue for me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Kurt Vonnegut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

1. User:Doc Strange^{User talk:Doc StrangeVersion 1.0 Editorial Team} 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Kansas Turnpike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 4/0/0

FA, but not sure if it is important or significant enough for a worldwide scope.

Hold

1. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:23, 03 November 2007 (GMT)
2. Walkerma (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bernstein2291 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Visual Basic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Hold

1. Ivan Akira (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

• I don't think this is a matter of importance; it's a matter of quality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/3/1

I think this is a good article to add to version 0.7. Because of Sherlock Holmes novels are widely known in England.

Hold

1. Ivan Akira (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

1. Just look at how many interwiki links are FA. That tells you how important this article is. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bernstein2291 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. The bot listing indicates this is a VERY important article to have, and it is already included under the Novels listing. I suspect the relative lack of inline citations reflects the fact that the article was already very well developed when inline citations began to be used widely. We have much worse articles than this one, which is inevitable if we want a collection of 30,000 articles on non-obscure topics. Walkerma (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I voted hold just because I wouldn't feel safe passing an article that barely has any inline citations. There's no way to tell if there's any original research included. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No in-line citations - a quality factor rather than importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 0/0/0

Hold

Include

Fail

Discussion

• FA, but not sure on importance. If it's included, it would be the only character from a soap opera in this release. Leaving it to others to decide. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Ramana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Hold

1. Although listed as high importance by WP:Hinduism, this has a very low hitcount and zero interwikis, suggesting low importance. Walkerma (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

• I think this is borderline. If it is expanded a little more and its quality is maintained, I can be convinced that this is important enough for inclusion. However, it is not quite there at the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmacakra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Hold

1. It would have been nice to include this, but it's only a poor quality article with only moderate importance rankings. Walkerma (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

• One citation is insufficient here so I'd fail it on quality. Importance is also an issue, but without a substantial fix in content, I cannot justify its inclusion in this release. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Saul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Hold

1. Moderately important, but not quite enough to make it into 0.7, IMHO. Walkerma (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Chen Chi-mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Hold

1. Nice on quality, but the topic is quite obscure. Walkerma (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Swaminarayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Hold

1. Importance is an issue. Quality is poor. Cannot justify its inclusion while other important articles from the Krishnaism project are not included. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Swaminarayan Sampraday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Hold

1. Importance is an issue. Quality is poor. Cannot justify its inclusion while other important articles from the Krishnaism project are not included. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

Swaminarayan temples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 2/0/0

Hold

1. Importance is an issue. Quality is poor. Cannot justify its inclusion while other important articles from the Krishnaism project are not included. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

William_Stacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Hold

1. Article is good but the topic is not quite important enough to make it. Walkerma (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Fail

Discussion

The Great American Bash (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

 Number of votes: 1/0/0

Hold