Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations

{| style="vertical-align:top;clear:both; background:none; color:black;" 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).
 * width="70%" style="padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; border:1px solid solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#DDFFFF" valign="top"|

How to vote
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.

Number of votes: 1/1/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Walkerma (talk)
 * Include:
 * 1) Lucy-marie (talk)


 * Fail:

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

Number of votes: 1/0/4 Stub ??. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 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)
 * Hold
 * Include
 * Fail
 * 1) - Running  On  Brains  07:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) AdjustShift (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion

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)

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

Number of votes: 1/0/4 Stub. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold
 * Include
 * Fail
 * 1) - Running  On  Brains  07:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Important enough to include, but far too short. - Running On  Brains  07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Per Shep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stepshep. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of votes: 2/0/0 Start. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold
 * 1) - Running  On  Brains  07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Include
 * Fail
 * Discussion
 * A short section on this should exist at main church article; don't believe this is important enough. - Running On  Brains  07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

}
Number of votes: 1/0/4 Stub, Bias. Lincher 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold
 * Include
 * Fail
 * 1) Start, needs a lot of work. Walkerma 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Running  On  Brains  07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Walkerma. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The Civil liberties article needs expansion, and more inline citations are required. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of votes: 2/0/0 Original nomination: Definitely deserves an inclusion. Almost GA. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic is not important enough to be included this time. Walkerma 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold
 * 1) Nice article, but not notable enough for this version.- Running  On  Brains  19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Include
 * Fail
 * Discussion

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


 * Hold
 * 1) Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Include
 * Fail
 * Discussion
 * Its scope is extremely limited, sadly. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 2) The main point for holding is the importance, I can't see this as being of much use in the next release.  AndrewJD  TALK  -- 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/4/1


 * Hold:
 * 1) Eyu100(t 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 2) Agree.  Cricket02 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitely. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Walkerma  AndrewJD  TALK  -- 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fail:
 * 1) An important work, but the lack of references is an issue for me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion:


 * 1) User:Doc StrangeUser talk:Doc StrangeVersion 1.0 Editorial Team 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Include:

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)
 * 3) Bernstein2291 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Ivan Akira (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 2)  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:
 * 1) Just look at how many interwiki links are FA. That tells you how important this article is. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Bernstein2291 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fail:
 * 1) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Discussion:

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

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

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)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

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)
 * 2) Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

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)
 * 2) Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

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)
 * 2) Walkerma (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

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)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) It is an FA, but appears to be low importance. Walkerma (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) It is an FA, but appears to be low importance. Walkerma (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) It is an FA, but appears to be low importance. Walkerma (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * B, fairly low importance, and we have the Chris Benoit article anyway. Walkerma (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Pretty low importance ratings, and some POV issues. Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Not quite important enough for 0.7.  Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Not important enough for 0.7. Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Not important enough by itself for 0.7.  Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Ranked very low in importance, only 315 views last month.  Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely not ready for inclusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Too low importance. Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Too low importance. Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Additionally, a couple of concerns on quality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Too low importance. Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Too low importance. Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 2/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Too narrow a topic, the parent isn't included, and the article will date very quickly.  Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I had the same view when I did a quick assessment, but didn't get around to delisting it on the main page and listing it here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Number of votes: 1/0/0


 * Hold:
 * 1) Just a bit too low in importance for an article of this quality. Walkerma (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Include:


 * Fail:


 * Discussion:

Archives
Closed nominations go here. Archive 1