Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Page feed
(Sorted feed)



Shortcut
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)


Memory refresh needed[edit]

We have a biography that was created in 2004. We have a draft that was created March 2022 by a user that was blocked for having a shared account. The user declared they are professional editors and publishers. I'm of the mind the draft should be deleted. There is currently a merge request, and I'm unfamiliar with merging drafts by blocked users into existing articles. Thoughts, please? Atsme 💬 📧 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice - new to the process[edit]

I'm a new NPPer and would like to talk an example through to make sure I'm clear what I'm doing. I'm looking at Eggert family, created a few days ago. It is not marked as having been reviewed, but it has been tagged as needing more citations and proposed and then declined for speedy deletion. What is the most helpful thing to do with this one? On the face of it, it looks to me as if it fails GNG in its current form. Should I mark as reviewed but leave a comment for the page creator to suggest they address the citations and notability issue? Should I tag with notability concerns? It doesn't appear to meet the criteria for draftifying. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always check copyvio and notability before anything else. If it's notability, off to AfD. No point draftifying or calling for further work if it's a notability issue because the possibilities are 1) the person doesn't work on it, it's deleted after 6months in draftspace 2) they do work on it, wasting time on a non-notable topic (non-notability can't be fixed by any amount of editing). (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing, I recommend following the NPP flowchart to the letter. Here is a color coded version I made that helps me visualize it. You'll notice that the only time you should mark as reviewed is 1) if it passes everything in the flowchart, or 2) if you replace the article with a redirect, or 3) if the article is AFD'd. If the article is tagged for CSD or tagged for PROD, or if you simply apply a maintenance tag and/or start a discussion with the user but the topic is not notable, it should not be marked as reviewed, as the creator can just remove the tag and then there is no system to catch this and they have snuck an article through. Remember that marking an article as reviewed allows Google to begin crawling it, which means there's hoards of spammers, SEO folks, and undisclosed paid editors that try to sneak non-notable articles through our process in order to get their clients on Wikipedia, the #10 website in the world when ranked by traffic. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I'm not sure that I understand: ...or if you simply apply a maintenance tag and/or start a discussion with the user, it should not be marked as reviewed.... Surely, if an article is otherwise fine, but is tagged with for example, an orphan template, it should be marked reviewed, even if the creator could simply remove that tag. Did I misunderstand you? Vexations (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my comment above to clarify. Thanks for catching. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, this is helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

I observed what I thought to be a sketchy looking article thus I quickly opened this AFD, my question is, do we consider NPOL to be an SNG or are the two criteria an indication of notability? as opposed to being an sng? Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent attempts to turn the single-subject notability guidelines into single-subject common outcomes are confusing. For NPP, I assume we can treat them as single-subject notability guidelines, and for borderline cases, an AFD can determine the final outcome. Let me know if I'm off the mark here or if you guys agree.
As to that specific article/AFD, I don't think candidates have ever qualified under NPOL. Need to actually have been elected to state or federal office, right?–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-copyright sources[edit]

  1. Specific question: in terms of the [[WP:ONESOURCE]] tag, do the DNB and the ODNB count as separate sources?
  2. General question 1: can I just have confirmation that an article which is a straightforward copy of an out-of-copyright source such as the DNB is acceptable? I've always thought that it was - there are, for example, thousands of articles that are direct copies of the Catholic Encyclopedia but those were mostly accepted years ago (despite being over 100 years out of date - separate issue, however) - but I'd just like to double-check that this is still OK. (Whether it's desirable is another question again, of course).
  3. General question 2:and if the answer to the previous question is "yes", is an article which is a straightforward copy of an out-of-copyright source such as the DNB still acceptable if that is the only source? Ingratis (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis: What do you mean by "acceptable"? That's certainly not ideal, but provided the source is out of copyright, the article would not meet any WP:CSD criteria and would satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis: I'd treat DNB and ODNB as the same source as the second is an update of the first (although that's probably an oversimplification). Agree with Elli about 'acceptable' and would probably tag the article with {{onesource}}. --John B123 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elli: @John B123: - thanks for the replies. By "acceptable" I did indeed mean "appropriate to be marked as reviewed" (as opposed to, for example, redirected to Wikisource). What John says is what I've been doing, but I must have over-thought it, as it started to look wrong. Ingratis (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me[edit]

- to see the huge current backlog. I may be retired for all intents and purposes, but because I consult the encyclopedia many times a day, I know what's going on. I spent years coaxing NPP into a desperately needed working function on Wikipedia and getting the WMF to improve the software. I don't want any praise for it - I just went and did what had to be done for the single most important non-admin process on the English Wikipedia, and of course I didn't do it entirely alone.

Time to stop once and for all from kidding ourselves that there are currently 711 New Page Reviewers, less than 10% of them are active in any way at all. The group membership should be heavily culled because '711' naturally leads one to believe "Ah, we have plenty of reviewers, why should I do any reviewing?"

It's also going to get much worse, a lot worse - the people who did the most work have now inevitably burned out, and will continue to do so until someone finally takes on the challenge of co-ordinating it. It's been proven now beyond any doubt that NPP cannot fulfill its critical role without some form of management - not 'governance obsessives' or authority, but structured organisation by a person or people with the necessary skills and of course time, like Barkeep49 and Insertcleverphrasehere once had for NPP. But it's like following WP:PCSI to cite one example; on a broader scale, it's like adminship, isn't it? Or getting serious candidates of the right calibre to step forward at the Arbcom elections. Or wanting to be a regular part of The Signpost editorial team. Few people these days appear to be interested in taking on a bit of responsibility or showing some initiative.

This talk page is at least a lively venue, but for many of the wrong reasons. Perhaps the few regular participants should start earnest discussions about putting right everything that's going wrong. Sorry to sound so doom-and-gloom, but it makes me feel that my and the efforts of a few dedicated editors such as Scottywong, WereSpielChequers, Robert McClenon, Jbhunley, and DGG (to name but a few) over more than a decade were wasted. Do we really want to see WP degenerate into a morass of paid editing, spam, COI, POV, and other senseless junk? Are all the genuine reviewers doing all the grunt work now wasting their own time? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see my time on Wikipedia as wasted. I hope that Wikipedia continues for a very long time to come, but even if it doesn't, I'm proud to have played my small part in this incredible project that really has made the sum of knowledge, or at least a pretty decent general interest encyclopaedia freely available to anyone with internet access. I'm not convinced that we need a managerial approach, but I do think we need to make things a bit more difficult for spammers. Perhaps it is time for a sticky company prod, a little like BLP prod, but for corporations and with a minimum requirement that every new article on a commercial business or product needs two sources that are independent of the business concerned. Or take a leaf out of DE wiki's procedures and have the software prompt authors of new articles for a source. Ideally with some software behind it that rejects Facebook etc, as not being reliable sources. ϢereSpielChequers 07:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers: excellent suggestions - as always - particularly the sticky company prod, but the very Catch-22 which is the leitmotif of my post above, is: who is going to take the initiative to launch the RfC to call for them, or request the WMF to develop the required software? It starts with the reluctance to even regularly check out WP:PCSI as I also highlighted. Plenty of less important/unofficial projects on this Wikipedia would barely function without their coordination (WP:Mil.Hist., WP:GOCE, etc.) whether they call them coordinators or task forces, or whatever: The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes...
I think most editors who have made any impact, however small, on policies and systems will always be proud of the legacy they left, even if they get superseded by better ones. However, having them left out in the weather to rust away like abandoned farm machinery, with people standing around gossiping and ignoring the real issues, can of course evoke some feeling of disappointment.
Naturally that disappointment could be converted to elation if some enthusiastic souls could/would drag them out of the weeds, repair them, and move them forward; better still, complete a list of possible and/or new realistic solutions and start officially proposing them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any of this compelling. I'd rather just hand in the tools than listen to someone standing on the sidelines telling us that we're doing it wrong. Count me me out. Vexations (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we need to review the purpose of NPP. Is it:
  1. To ensure that all new articles are of a sufficient minimum quality level? (If so, what should that minimum quality level be, because reviewers seem to have vastly differing notions.)
  2. To act as gatekeepers with a warrior mentality trying to "prevent the flood of spammers"? (Don't get me wrong - there is a flood of spammers and we do need to prevent them, but I'm not sure that is or should be the sole purpose of NPP, and I think when we approach it with that mentality many people tend to develop almost a paranoia, as if every article must be spam. I've been declining a lot of G11 speedies lately, and it feels (again, this is subjective and anecdotal - I haven't done a true random sampling of all G11s) as if some people think any bio of a living person or any article about a company must be spam - and the G11 criteria even warns us of that attitude.)
  3. To review all new articles, ensure the obvious trash is dealt with, tag obvious problems in articles, improve them if we have the time/inclination, and ensure nothing falls through the cracks without at least a cursory review? (This has been my approach when I do new page review, but I think I'm in the minority here.)
  4. A combination of some or all of the above?
  5. Something else entirely? (If so, what?)
North8000 recommends narrowing the job to just seeing if the article should exist - but people have vastly different notions about what should or shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, hence the age old inclusionist/deletionist debates, the existence and proliferation of subject-specific notability guidelines, and AFD itself. Moreover, if the job is just about asking "should this exist?" we don't need all the tools in the sidebar for tagging issues like tone or sourcing or grammar.
Should we approach NPP with the attitude that, "most articles are ok, they just need some clean up, but some need to go." Or should we approach it with an attitude that, "Wikipedia has most of the articles it should have. New articles are mostly bad people are trying sell something. We need to stop them." ? Because which attitude the project takes will greatly affect who is drawn to it, how they approach the work, and how likely they are to become burned out. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "should exist" I mean reasonably complies with wp:notability and wp:not. Doing this job does not mean being in the nasty mental states that you describe, not negative presumptions about articles that you describe. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPP has been in trouble for a few years considering just what a larger percentage of work was being done by a single editor. My attempts to fix that before it became an issue were in effective and now I am, at least for the moment, largely on the sidelines as my attention is focused elsewhere. I do think WSC has it right that all the past work that has been done has had value and I think Vex has it right that all the work that's happening now has value too. I think the discussion ONU and North are having about what NPP should focus on is the right one to be having among those currently working NPP. But "NPP needs help" is a conversation that the larger community needs to be convinced of not the people on this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's really cool to have NPP do all of the other extra things alluded to. My comment was more of a pragmatic one. To do the full flow chart is a lot of work and takes skill and fluency in a LOT of areas. So not only does that mean that it takes a 1/2 hour per article, but it needs a wider skill set than most editors have. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate narrowing the job to just seeing if the article should exist. The current flow chart covers things that the millions of editors should be doing, not the dozens of active overloaded NPP'ers should be trying to do. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to simplify the flowchart, I think removing some of the gnoming tasks in the bottom left (these 4 boxes: categorization, stub sort, maintenance tags, WikiProject tags) would make the most sense. If skipped, these tasks are likely to be done by gnomes, and present no risk of letting spam through. Or if it's important to be thorough about the gnome tasks, we could create a 2nd queue where anyone with extendedconfirmed could do this much shorter checklist, then mark the article as gnomed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to endorse this! Personally, I never fill these out, (Unless there's some special reason, like suggesting an unusual category).nor do I add the biographic data for living people that merely repeats the article. I sometimes fix non-standard presentation and confusing organization, and I sometime adjust bibliographic data, but that's mainly when I find it necessary to rewrite the article for clarity. All these thingswill be fixed later just as always--the work of our wikignomes has always been of high quality.
We should immediately remove these from the flowchart and the template. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. These gnoming tasks are usually what takes the least reviewing time for me. Stub sorting is one I occasionally skip if I can't find the right stub sorting template quickly. MarioGom (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've gotten pushback on this idea of "NPP is having an emergency" before, which bugs me because I do think that a 10k queue is abnormal and should be taken seriously. Another thing that bugs me is these community RFCs and discussions that either add to the size of the queue unnecessarily (admins losing autopatrol), or increase the complexity of NPP unnecessarily (90 day limit for draftification). The wider community seems fine with passing edicts that directly affect the size of the queue or the complexity of the job. I would like to see Wikipedia go in a direction where the wider community acknowledges that NPP is a difficult job with a big backlog, and considers very carefully before they pass additional changes to the NPP process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could just do a simple soft minor change. We just say the the expected tasks in a review are the "Should this article exist?" questions (implementing wp:not and wp:notability) and everything else is "above and beyond" for those who care to do so. Keep the flow chart as is for them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit tangential, but given Onel's past focus on the back of the NPP queue, one shift that wouldn't go amiss and which wouldn't require any formal consensus-seeking would be for reviewers to focus their attention to the back of the queue. Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Oldest has some advice for taking on this task, to which I'd add that articles that have sat in the queue for several months can typically stand being more aggressively triaged, and borderline cases involving obscure languages can often be dealt with by tagging for notability and marking reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 16:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have an issue with Admins bashing me over the head for tagging articles and marking them as reviewed. I stopped marking them as reviewed, which is one reason why there are many, many articles in the queue, particularly in WP:NPPSORT. If I go there, and find articles tagged but not marked reviewed, I pass them by. So, what is the correct thing to do here? --Whiteguru (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my sporadic (=failed) efforts to become a bigger NPP contributor, I'd done some back of the cue work. The two main reasons for the oldest ones being there are that it's a very old page that just got converted (e.g. a 2016 redirect that just got converted to an article) or else an article that is a particularly difficult one to review. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, I was disincentivized from editing for a while but now I'm back editing/reviewing/teaching as time permits. I always begin at the back of the queue and noticed a whole shipload full of unreviewed articles that weren't there before - one dating as far back as 2006 with source issues (that I'm using for training purposes and why I left it in the queue). As the years advance in the queue, the numbers grow. It appears 2021 was a booger year for articles needing review. Makes me wonder if CommanderWaterford was really all that bad. From what I can recall, he did an incredible amount of work for NPP, but was questioned about some articles he brought over from other language pedias that were considered copyvios or too closely paraphrased, or something along that line - I think he just forgot to tag them as being translations - but his cock of the walk responses to the accusations did exactly as one would expect. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 10:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer blocked[edit]

Just a courtesy notice that Aloolkaparatha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a probationary new page reviewer, has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry with possible UPE connections. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aloolkaparatha. Aloolkaparatha reviewed approximately 130 articles; most of them seem fine at a glance but it still might be worth either putting the articles back in the queue (as we've done before) or at least looking over some of them. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this editor appears to be a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) I looked at the (Indian) reviews. (I am a bit familiar with Indian and Sri Lankan ephemera, etc., as I resided there for some time). I also looked at some of the Polish footballers, given the recent change to NSPORT. The following can go back in the queue: -Whiteguru (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Girraj Kishore Mahaur

Vidya Yeravdekar

Antoni Kot

Edward Konietzny

Paweł Kowalski

Józef Kopicera

Antoni Konopelski

Tadeusz Konkiewicz

Józef Kokot

Adam Kogut

Filip Kmiciński

Henryk Janikowski

Puja Chakraborty

Redirect autopatrol list notification bot[edit]

Hi there! I've proposed a bot to automatically notify new users added to the redirect autopatrol list through appending User:EpicPupper/Redirect autopatrol to their talk pages. Any thoughts? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly against this - it implies that the bot will always work (no promises) and also the user doesn't really need to know - this is meant simply to help with patrollers' work load. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly envisioned this as to avoid confusion, as I was having all my redirects patrolled by the bot. I checked the bot's tasks, and noticed that not all of the patrolling criteria (e.g. capitalization-only changes) were met by my moves, so I was fairly confused. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper what if I add a "why was my redirect patrolled" section to the bot's user page? DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712 that would be great. I could withdraw my BRFA, then. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper added, Special:Diff/1083236490 --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag reports[edit]

Since we have often discussed the usage of the notability tags, I'm wondering if we could use them more proactively to seek second opinions. Maybe we could generate a report of all unreviewed pages with notability tags (example SQL query), so that reviewers who are inclined to can check articles where notability was dubious (but not clear enough for an AfD nomination). Here's what the result would look like as of now:

List of unreviewed pages with notability tags, 19 April 2022

  1. Mövenpick Ambassador Hotel Accra
  2. Scott Symons (American football)
  3. Active Theory
  4. Sa'eu Scanlan
  5. Lisa N Edwards
  6. Ladd McConkey
  7. Daphne Dorman
  8. Wendy Lawal
  9. Main Chala
  10. Shah Mehmood Jaan Qadri
  11. Lingua (indonesian vocal group)
  12. Tin Tin Five
  13. Evie Ferris
  14. Kelly Hamilton (entertainer)
  15. Darnell Washington
  16. Lilka
  17. Shokz
  18. Cumberland University Sports Hall of Fame
  19. Karina Istomina
  20. PMU Interlife
  21. Community Inn (album)
  22. University of Connecticut College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
  23. Violent Pop
  24. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
  25. Super Giant Robot Brothers
  26. Claye (musician)
  27. Marek Konarski
  28. Ghada Oueiss
  29. Apocalypse Whenever
  30. Federal Government Girls College, Potiskum
  31. Federal Government Girls College, Jalingo
  32. Federal Science and Technical College, Jalingo
  33. Bishnupur Shiksha Sangha
  34. Julian Chadwick
  35. Hooman Haji Abdollahi
  36. Mattie Lubchansky
  37. Here Be Monsters (Ten album)
  38. Eliyahu Simpson
  39. Federal Science and Technical College, Orozo
  40. Federal Government College, Jos
  41. Federal Government Girls College, Bauchi
  42. Federal Government College, Warri
  43. Nagendra Chaudhary
  44. Roadranger transmission
  45. FO(.)
  46. Freddie Beckitt
  47. Federal Government Girls College, Akure
  48. Federal Government Girls College, Oyo
  49. Sibbu Suryan
  50. Prosper Tornyi
  51. Sumit Ghosh
  52. Yuichi Toyama
  53. Anders Henriksson (politician)
  54. Khanyisa
  55. Razaq Obe
  56. That's Rich
  57. Kyō Noguchi
  58. Seckford Golf Club
  59. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-47, Chandigarh
  60. Polish National Catholic Church of The Holy Cross (Brooklyn)
  61. Federal Government College, Port Harcourt
  62. Federal Government Girls College, Umuahia
  63. Federal Government College, Ilorin
  64. Jack Brady
  65. ...And Give Us Our Daily Sex
  66. In Geek We Trust
  67. Audrey L. Hall
  68. Jashimuddin Avenue
  69. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Road
  70. Sidney Cornell
  71. Fatmir Gjeka
  72. Áine Rose Daly
  73. Season Finale (Héctor & Tito album)
  74. Katrin Nolte
  75. Burnin' Rubber (series)
  76. Dawood Olad Al-Seyed
  77. Fame On Fire
  78. UTV HD (India)
  79. IGNEA
  80. Swedish Public Freedom Service
  81. Sivanath Sastri
  82. Damla Mohibullah
  83. Wildgirl
  84. Harrison Bailey
  85. Federal Government College, Ugwolawo
  86. Federal Government Girls College, Zaria
  87. Federal Government College, Ohafia
  88. Federal Government Girls College, Yola
  89. Federal Science and Technical College, Uromi
  90. Federal Government Girls College, Onitsha
  91. Federal Government College, Nise
  92. Federal Government College, Okigwe
  93. Vlas Kobara
  94. Cameron Cartee (audio engineer)
  95. Daniel Ankarloo
  96. Steph Hodgins-May
  97. Plearnpichaya Komalarajun
  98. Wes Goodwin
  99. Ilham Naghiyev
  100. Kyle Richardson (American football coach)
  101. Yeh Na Thi Hamari Qismat
  102. Colorado Film
  103. Safaa Thiab
  104. Salman Zain Al Deen
  105. Dontez Byrd
  106. Kenainah Diab
  107. Lester Embree
  108. Vitaliy Zhupanskyi
  109. Conica AG
  110. Ahmad Bahgat
  111. Loonaverse: From
  112. 11th World Festival of Youth and Students
  113. La Belle Province (nickname)
  114. Parker Fleming
  115. Ibrāhīm Sakjahā
  116. American Business Council Nigeria
  117. New Artist Spotlight
  118. Mats Ekman
  119. The Holy Woman
  120. Hamdi Mohamed
  121. Eighth Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference
  122. Disappearance of Ali Gilmore
  123. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  124. Judy Jay
  125. Tatsuya Suou
  126. RADICAAL
  127. Amany Abdallah El-Sharif
  128. Yasar ibn Khiyar
  129. Christ Episcopal Church, Woodbury, New Jersey
  130. New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases)
  131. Educational Testing and Evaluation Agency
  132. Purwojaya
  133. After Ever Happy
  134. Uttar Pradesh Football Sangh
  135. Jessica Mak
  136. Storming of the prisons in Donetsk
  137. Alf Lawrie
  138. St. John Vianney School
  139. Afreen Rahat
  140. Ehsan K. Matoori
  141. Gideon Obhakhan
  142. Vertex United
  143. M-Market
  144. Kourtney Penner
  145. The Kitchen (Jewish community)
  146. Wulf Kessler
  147. The War of the Running Dogs
  148. Mo Dadkhah
  149. Buymie
  150. Shlomo Flam
  151. Brad Glenn (American football coach)
  152. 8 Conlay
  153. Stu Holt
  154. Dwight Galt IV
  155. Kostadinka Momirović
  156. The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity
  157. Kalabalak
  158. Ayre (Golijov)
  159. Jack Miller III
  160. Tapiola Central Tower
  161. Arabia (shopping centre)
  162. Francisco "Paquito" Joglar Herrero
  163. Albert Kushlick
  164. Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi (GYV)
  165. Lionel Kopelowitz
  166. Krummi svaf í klettagjá
  167. Kasper Møller Hansen
  168. Aarght Records
  169. Willis E. Bell
  170. Zindeeq
  171. Federal Government College, Birnin Yauri
  172. Federal Government Girls College, Kazaure
  173. Federal Science and Technical College, Ahoada
  174. Federal Government College, Kwali
  175. Federal Government Girls College, Ikot Obio-Itong
  176. Federal Government College, Odi
  177. Federal Science and Technical College, Dayi
  178. Federal Government College, Keffi
  179. Federal Government Girls College, Efon Alaaye
  180. Federal Government Girls College, Gboko
  181. Federal Government Girls College, Bwari
  182. Federal Government Girls College, Imiringi
  183. Federal Science and Technical College, Otobi
  184. Federal Science and Technical College, Kafanchan
  185. Federal Government Girls College, Sagamu
  186. Abu Qays b. al-Aslat
  187. David C. Kopaska-Merkel
  188. Anani Dzidzienyo
  189. JJ Alfieri
  190. Jordan Travis
  191. Jean Balamba
  192. Nina Valjalo
  193. Elecktra Bionic
  194. Roag (2022 TV series)
  195. Aycha Sawa
  196. Alba Rico
  197. Frep the Fox
  198. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Manipur
  199. Dudes (album)
  200. Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge
  201. Matej Silecky
  202. Houston R. Cypress
  203. Mary Liedel
  204. Priscilla Almodovar
  205. Juma Al Majid Holding Group
  206. Jovito Claudio
  207. Costanza Trotti
  208. Deepak Sharma (writer)
  209. Theresa Dostaler
  210. Michael Ramey
  211. List of Delicious Party Pretty Cure episodes
  212. Esben Holmboe Bang
  213. Marcus S. Campbell
  214. Adrian Benegas
  215. Bullers Wood School for Boys
  216. LJ Cryer
  217. Luis Olmedo
  218. Jagannath Aur Purvi Ki Dosti Anokhi
  219. Ravisankar (script writer and director)
  220. Phuleshwari
  221. Tuatara (company)
  222. Yale Science & Engineering Association
  223. Golden Grove Park & Ride
  224. Texas Jeans USA
  225. Redcar F.C.
  226. Ronen Bar
  227. Kario Oquendo
  228. Agiye Hall
  229. Traeshon Holden
  230. Lines.com
  231. University Teachers Association of Ghana
  232. Goldberg drum
  233. Sica Ho
  234. Kunal Singh (actor, born 1955)
  235. Forever Tour
  236. Joaquín La Habana
  237. Jess Simpson
  238. Thorazine (band)
  239. Rubbertape
  240. Carman Hall (Eastern Illinois University)
  241. R. E. Bradshaw
  242. Aliia Roza
  243. Joe Amabile
  244. Connor Kalopsis
  245. Noelle Silva
  246. Carman Hall (Illinois Institute of Technology)
  247. Craig Jacobs
  248. Internet Buzzword Award
  249. Mostafa Monwar
  250. Andrew Caldecott (barrister)
  251. Gianna LePera
  252. Zarghoon road killing
  253. Lagos State Primary Healthcare Board
  254. Bobby Wilson (Pittsburgh politician)
  255. Institute of Ukrainian Archeography
  256. Alfredo Rodríguez (baseball)
  257. Mercy Amua-Quarshie
  258. David Peterson (executive)
  259. TheFestivals
  260. International Institute of Yoga and Naturopathy Medical Sciences (IIYNMS)
  261. Jesse Lesniowski
  262. Syria Gulf Bank
  263. Meena Kotwal
  264. Keith Wolahan
  265. Stuart Heritage
  266. Yulia Yanina
  267. Yassir Ahmad Hassan
  268. List of book management software
  269. Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe character)
  270. Sunnah College of Education, Bauchi
  271. Clay County High School (Tennessee)
  272. Hayal Köseoğlu
  273. Nagina (1951 film)
  274. Jiangsu Centre For The Perfoming Arts
  275. Jacques Colimon
  276. St. Clare's Senior Secondary School, Agra
  277. Main Mar Gai Shaukat Ali
  278. Dil Haari
  279. Ahl-e-Wafa
  280. Peter Tait (actor)
  281. English Ceramic Circle
  282. Soundtrack (EP)
  283. South Road, Melbourne
  284. Del Water Gap (album)
  285. Arrest of Jolie King and Mark Firkin
  286. Paul Massaro
  287. Alice in Wonderland (Neuschwanstein album)
  288. Andela Sriramulu Yadav
  289. Colin F. Jackson
  290. Khidmat Guzar
  291. Kountry Luv
  292. S. Bethannan
  293. Jacob Douglas
  294. International Center for Investigative Reporting (ICIR)
  295. Gombe State Water board
  296. Karibu Travel Magazine
  297. Aashay Mishra
  298. Debashish Chakrabarty
  299. Ganta Ravi Teja
  300. George Bingrini
  301. Jonas Muthoni
  302. Hridyaram Mahashye
  303. Katie Britt
  304. Krishna Patel
  305. Michael Moreci
  306. Narendra Choudary Tummala
  307. Camano–Whidbey ferry
  308. Deepak Kalal
  309. The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 1)
  310. Phanord Cabé
  311. Shakira Wannabe
  312. LiveLib
  313. List of state visits made by Norodom Sihamoni
  314. Priyank Sharma
  315. Zorargonj Ideal High School
  316. Gladys Blake (writer)
  317. Taj Exotica Resort
  318. Out of bounds (Playgrounds)
  319. Decentralized social network
  320. Çanakkale Atletik GSK
  321. Red supergiant problem
  322. Tanglewood Middle School shooting
  323. Dave Bliss (basketball, born 1986)
  324. Cool City Production Vol. 2 "Mai-K's Re-Mix"
  325. Charlie George (comedian)
  326. Sa'd ibn al-Harth al-Ansari
  327. DJ Loft
  328. Adam's Marble
  329. James F. Johnson
  330. Toni Mount
  331. BookBrainz
  332. Yandex.Games
  333. Pablo Arbúes
  334. Channel in a box
  335. Bal Krishen Rathore
  336. Beit Hinuch
  337. Vicenç Martínez Duart
  338. High School Nehra, Darbhanga
  339. Natcha Thawesaengskulthai
  340. Mamosta
  341. Manuel Roza Cabrera
  342. Raisen District Yoga Sports Association
  343. Southlands School
  344. Hesham Nazih
  345. Arnaldo Rosa Prata
  346. Tomasz Konicz
  347. Healing River
  348. Bhartendra Arun
  349. Spy Bahu
  350. R. Venkatachalam
  351. 2022 Kabul mosque attack
  352. Walk the Sky 2.0
  353. Rajeev Jhawar
  354. Saumya Kamble
  355. Ne EP
  356. Hossein Rahmati
  357. Public Financial Management
  358. 55:15 Never Too Late
  359. Martin Hemings
  360. Na Katro Pankh Mere
  361. Mere Khwab Lauta Do
  362. Haya Kay Rang
  363. Victoria Nakibuuka
  364. Ramesh Dahal
  365. Leng Ern Jee Temple
  366. Prince Chaudhary
  367. Maitha Al Khayat
  368. Anfibia
  369. WekaFS
  370. Hanna Öberg (YouTuber)
  371. Błażej Podleśny
  372. Mark Duthie
  373. Sushanth Reddy
  374. Dhanveer Gowda
  375. Lower Duck Pond
  376. Gelareh Sheibani
  377. Bong Tolentino
  378. Claire Luchette
  379. StoryChopsticks
  380. Vidathu Karuppu
  381. Kamilla Hermann
  382. Ryan J. Downey
  383. Lee Groves
  384. Dominika Kluźniak
  385. Abeer Al Taher
  386. Makarem Elghamry
  387. Pavitra — Bharose Ka Safar
  388. Harjit Kaur Talwandi
  389. Harjit Singh Grewal
  390. ComputerCraft
  391. Fahim Burney
  392. Taleh Kazimov
  393. Shereé Whitfield
  394. Criticism of philosophy
  395. Sexual Heretics
  396. The LIP Magazine
  397. Chen Zi-Ming
  398. Gerania (book)
  399. The Historie of Travaile Into Virginia Britannia
  400. Chronicles of Alsea
  401. MP 51
  402. Rileys
  403. FLO (band)
  404. Guru Karunamaya
  405. Peninei Halakha
  406. 1967–68 Kilmarnock F.C. season
  407. Newlands, Cayman Islands
  408. Area code 975
  409. Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction
  410. Mohamed Okash
  411. Erastus Akingbola
  412. Sir David Baird, 3rd Baronet
  413. New York Review
  414. Hakeem Nabina Ansari
  415. Gold chain mine
  416. Jan Muszynski
  417. Ventilation shutdown
  418. Anxious People
  419. Truth & Beauty (memoir)
  420. How Not To Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease
  421. Jodelle Duverseau
  422. Simon Kweku Tetteh
  423. Dhinchaak 2
  424. James R. Scapa
  425. Vladimir Frolov (general)
  426. Andy Nagy
  427. Ivan Veit
  428. Mohammed bin Said
  429. John W. Mina
  430. Dutch Reformed Churches
  431. Ali Al Momen
  432. Trady
  433. Jeremy Pocklington
  434. Zviad Kupatadze
  435. Priya Vadlamani
  436. Ian Reid (skateboarder)
  437. Stavros Halkias
  438. Ajit Panicker
  439. Mythic Table
  440. Hamish Glencross

Is this something worth trying? MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First question - how did the article get into mainspace if there's a GNG question? It should not have been approved if it began as an AfC draft, and if it was added by an autopatrolled user, then that user needs to fix the problem. Secondly, AfD is where we normally go if it's not notable, which would/should include any questionable notability - it either is, or isn't notable. Atsme 💬 📧 09:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme: This is a list of unreviewed articles. Tags might have been added by both reviewers (often giving some room for a second opinion, or improvement by the author) or non-reviewers. MarioGom (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get it - but see Kyla Carter for some insight into what I'm referring to relative to the time sinks that are created. Atsme 💬 📧 11:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220424213801/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:NPR

Leave a Reply