| Revision as of 00:11, 28 March 2024 editToughpigs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,998 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:22, 28 March 2024 edit undoJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ** Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? ] (]) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | ** Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? ] (]) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Comment''' The two sources we have are the equivalent of ] without any further explanation (with the ''Daily Show'' mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) | ::*'''Comment''' The two sources we have are the equivalent of ] without any further explanation (with the ''Daily Show'' mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::: How so? The Washington Times article includes specific discussion about the goals, and dicusses the founders and their motivation. Similarly the Richmond article has a lot more than just existence. I'm struggling to see what aspect here is somehow different not about the general notability criterion. (And since ITEXISTS was an existing argument to avoid since well before 2009, that hasn't changed either.) ] (]) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.] (]) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.] (]) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ** ] is a specific policy. Something being defunct is not a valid deletion argument. Notability is not temporary. ] (]) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Keep''': "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See ], specifically ]. ] (]) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)</s> Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination". | *<s>'''Keep''': "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See ], specifically ]. ] (]) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)</s> Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination". | ||
Revision as of 02:22, 28 March 2024
QubeTV
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- QubeTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been 6 years since a WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- keep (Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of the article.) The situation is essentially the same as with the prior nomination. There are multiple reliable sources focusing on the website. That the website is now defunct doesn't alter the notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Websites. Spiderone 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Another failed YouTube clone, and our standards have changed since 2009 so this doesn't pass N under current guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The two sources we have are the equivalent of WP:ITEXISTS without any further explanation (with the Daily Show mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- How so? The Washington Times article includes specific discussion about the goals, and dicusses the founders and their motivation. Similarly the Richmond article has a lot more than just existence. I'm struggling to see what aspect here is somehow different not about the general notability criterion. (And since ITEXISTS was an existing argument to avoid since well before 2009, that hasn't changed either.) JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.Royal88888 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DEFUNCT is a specific policy. Something being defunct is not a valid deletion argument. Notability is not temporary. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep: "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See WP:ATA, specifically WP:DEFUNCT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination".