The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Appears to have received enough coverage per the sources mentioned on article. lorstaking 15:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, but only just. This is a weird one, because this group has been the subject of a bunch of news coverage. As much as I'm unenthused about the subject... the article only just appears to meet GNG. -- a they/them |
argue |
contribs
Delete - although there are multiple instances of coverage, all of it is from a very short period in July 2019, with nothing since then (that I've seen, anyway). This is pretty indicative of something that went mildly viral for about a week, then vanished back into obscurity without much further interest.
WP:N looks for more: it demands that subjects have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold). The coverage of this group fails that second criteria, as all of the coverage clearly comes from a single short period. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, coverage of this group was maintained for several months, such as here:
[1] from late October 2019 by
Deseret News, and here
[2] from early December, published by
Coconuts Media, and here:
[3] by
Wired (magazine), again from December, though the last one is rather brief. There is also tons of coverage from August 2019. I believe this showcases that this group received coverage over a period of time sufficient to pass
WP:N.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
01:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Appears to have received enough coverage per the sources mentioned on article. lorstaking 15:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, but only just. This is a weird one, because this group has been the subject of a bunch of news coverage. As much as I'm unenthused about the subject... the article only just appears to meet GNG. -- a they/them |
argue |
contribs
Delete - although there are multiple instances of coverage, all of it is from a very short period in July 2019, with nothing since then (that I've seen, anyway). This is pretty indicative of something that went mildly viral for about a week, then vanished back into obscurity without much further interest.
WP:N looks for more: it demands that subjects have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold). The coverage of this group fails that second criteria, as all of the coverage clearly comes from a single short period. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, coverage of this group was maintained for several months, such as here:
[1] from late October 2019 by
Deseret News, and here
[2] from early December, published by
Coconuts Media, and here:
[3] by
Wired (magazine), again from December, though the last one is rather brief. There is also tons of coverage from August 2019. I believe this showcases that this group received coverage over a period of time sufficient to pass
WP:N.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
01:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.