Talk:Angry Birds Peace Treaty
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angry Birds Peace Treaty redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
expand
editPlease expand this article using the suggested sources. New sources are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really know if this is worth a seperate article, it is discussed in the two related Wiki pages already. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. This doesn't really seem necessary. DarkOppressor (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. A separate article for this is completely unnessary, as it is covered enough in the main Angry Birds article. It is in the nature of anything "viral" to have its rush "15-minutes of fame" then it dies off into oblivion. This is especially true for the Internet, which is dominated by things like memes. As a result, unless repeated sketches come along, like Bill Swerski's Superfans, you won't find any more sources, new and old. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No Merger Proposed
editI just saw this page was merged with Angry Birds, with no prior discussion of the matter and no suggestions for merger or deletion of the article. Please discuss the options for this article here before making any decisions. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The above section is nothing but people stating that a separate article shouldn't exist, and the AfD mostly defaulted to Keep simply because it was frowned on being used as a merge proposal. It seems clear to me that a consensus for merging was established and not acted on. The article contains no real information that is not already in Angry Birds and has clearly been abandoned with no progress for months. While the possibly of expansion exists, it is unlikely, and future content should simply be added to the core article and split at a later date if needed. Do you actually have a real objection to the merge? Or are you just mucking up my attempts to be bold?--Remurmur (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The general consensus is that if an article is to be moved/merged, it should be discussed on the article's talk page first before doing so. It was not done so here or on the Angry Birds page before merging, and nor did the previous nomination adequately explain the reasons for deletion in the first place aside from one reason (the second was the references, which were answered by a respondant). ggctuk (2005) (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- So 10 days and no other comments. How long till action be taken, you reckon?--Remurmur (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just merge it, there is no new information being added. Unless someone can make this article unique, there is no need for it.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- So 10 days and no other comments. How long till action be taken, you reckon?--Remurmur (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- The general consensus is that if an article is to be moved/merged, it should be discussed on the article's talk page first before doing so. It was not done so here or on the Angry Birds page before merging, and nor did the previous nomination adequately explain the reasons for deletion in the first place aside from one reason (the second was the references, which were answered by a respondant). ggctuk (2005) (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)