Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A group where we all pretend to be boomers


 * 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A group where we all pretend to be boomers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability. LibrarianDaemon (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Deletion review/Log/2020 May 8
 * 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 &#124; argue &#124; contribs
 * Keep - Mentioned by many, many, many, reliable sources like this one. Also, there really isn't any context in the nomination. 🌺Kori🌺  - ( @ ) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage of this group was maintained for several months, such as here: from late October 2019 by Deseret News, and here  from early December, published by Coconuts Media, and here:  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)
 * Weak keep - even though this topic didn't have much coverage after a few weeks, there still was some. KevTYD (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per at least a little bit of coverage later in the year. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was the original author of this page, but I still feel that it meets notability guidelines, especially with some of the more recent sources for it, as noted by above, and with my recent edits, where I added a few more sources to the article.  Seagull123  Φ  22:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Would have been better in wikinews. --evrik (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.