 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
Fire Emblem characters[edit]
Hi MJL, I dont want to actually waste your time working it, but it already deemed that the article can't be notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.61.90 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks IP. I'm mostly just doing it for fun and explore how that list would actually look like were it written. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Movement for a People's Party for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement for a People's Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
SecretName101 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Daraj Media has been accepted[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)RfA 2021 review update[edit]
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
- Corrosive RfA atmosphere
- The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
- Level of scrutiny
- Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
- Standards needed to pass keep rising
- It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
- Too few candidates
- There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
- "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
- Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere. - Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas. - RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
E11Even Miami[edit]
Hello, MJL,
I'm surprised you accepted this article which mainly seems notable by the fact that a few celebrities visited it. The lead calls it a nightclub but later on it is described as just a strip club. Is it just a local strip club? The page creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry but not so the article can be deleted for it, CSD G5Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Liz: So the first thing that convinced me of its notability was this article by Men's Journal. That was a particularly in depth piece for a single night club, and that's what I used for the basis of the
The night club has been noted for hosting several high profile patrons
line. Secondly, the Miami Herald had pretty decent coverage of the establishment with headlines like: 'You live and learn': G-Eazy parties in Miami with new girlfriend – at a familiar club and Miami's favorite 24/7 nightclub is reopening after 7 months. Here's what to expect (of course there's more in the individual articles), but the only thing I could conclude was that the Herald seemed to view this place as particularly noteworthy in regards to the city's nightlife. - As for the strip club / nightclub thing, I don't know. The Independent calls it a strip club in what little I can see outside the paywall. Considering I have never been to either type of club, I couldn't tell you personally if there is much of a difference?
- My conclusion is that the article demonstrates notability while not being an obvious advertisement. After I accepted the draft, I filed the SPI against the article creator, so I already knew about the socking thing. If you think the article is not ready for mainspace, I'll revert my action to publish it. Otherwise, I can see no policy reason to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)