Talk:Politicians begin campaigns for Flint, Michigan replacement mayor

Stale

Unfortunately, this article has lingered for too long. February 19 is too long ago for this to be news. However, if it is updated with fresh developments and new sources, it can still be rescued. --SVTCobra 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has reviewed it. I can not review it because I wrote it. Second it is still relevant as the election has not taken place yet. The election is on May 5, 2009. --Spshu (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Flint, Michigan temporary mayor cleans out staff - these articles should be merged together. Cirt (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been updated with new information. So we don't split the discussion about merger, the discussion started at the other articles' talk page and should continue there. --Spshu (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This story has become stale, aka old news. So unless there are any updates that are recent, then I don't think this can be published. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but both of this articles got shuttened to Develop or disputed via the Merge tag. No one argue for merger much less indicate how such a merge would look like (it seem more like a Wikipedia suggested merge then a Wikinews style merge), so while some one could have reviewed them they stewed as articles in development/disputed, thus becoming stale. Article was update 2/27/2009, yet no review forthcomming. Appearently, there are not enough people reviewing or too busy marking articles stale or "possible merge". With out going through the process of review several times might contributors feel confortable in reviewing other articles? Does not seem to be any reason for me to contribute as it looks like 4 out of 5 articles I started will or have or should have been deleted. Not a great incentive for me to continue to contribute.

Additional, how does who is running get stale before the race is in full swing? Petition deadline is March 10,2009 so more information should be forth coming.--Spshu (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Review revision 777187

Revision 777187 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Forgive me, I added a couple of sentences to this article myself. --SVTCobra 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 777187 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Forgive me, I added a couple of sentences to this article myself. --SVTCobra 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.