Talk:Tyrida

Contested deletion

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Codrin.B (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because this is part of a series on ancient Dacian cities and fortresses, all notable. The context is set in the lead and sourced. Many articles on these cities/fortressesare in a stub form at this point, but the goal for all articles is to reach a much more detailed form, similar to Ziridava, Argedava, Sarmizegetusa Regia etc. It is one of the main projects of WP:DACIA. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is full of 'please add content' boxes and the lead does not explain what Tyrida actualy is. To someone who has no knowledge on the subject, it does identify what its subject is. If you feel this is unsuitable, please add an explenation of what Tyrida is and then remove the CSD tags. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the CSD tag while this discussion takes place Oddbodz (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it wasn't very clear. How does it look now? --Codrin.B (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be CSD'ed anymore! It still needs major improvement but so do many articles. Could I make a recomendations that all the sectins are removed and, for the time being, we tag the article as a stub? Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is already tagged as a stub. We could remove empty sections but I think they help guide contributors to create consistent articles across all the series (e.g. Dacian cities). For those who know about Ziridava or Capidava, it would not be a problem. But many folks don't look and come up with all kind of section names. I don't have a strong opinion about the empty sections, and aware of pros and cons, but I would vote for keeping them for the reasons I explained, granted is not ideal. Hopefully their existence will prompt uses to contribute.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]