Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Latest article changes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent changes

[edit]

Recent changes to WikiProject Connecticut pages.

Alerts

[edit]

Recent developments to pages under the scope of WikiProject Connecticut. For an archive of older alerts, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Article alerts/Archive.

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 30 Sep 2026 – Chris Cantelmo (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Voorts (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
  • 29 Sep 2026 – Alexandra Olivia (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by PeriodicEditor (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
  • 10 Sep 2026 – Doug Allen (meteorologist) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Bonadea (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

  • 29 Sep 2026 – Sycamore Place (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by MrFib (t · c): WP:NOTABILITY, building does not have enough useful information to warrant an article. Lacks significant coverage, most information is trivial (WP:GNG)

Categories for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Assessment log

[edit]

Recently assessed or reevaluated WikiProject Connecticut pages.






  • Valentin Senn (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Importance to Low-Importance. (rev · t)




  • Frank Hubbell (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Importance. (rev · t)









  • Stephen Somma (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Importance. (rev · t)


Deletion discussions

[edit]

Transcluded from and further information found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut.


Connecticut

[edit]
Chris Cantelmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restore redirect to Dimethyltryptamine#Cantelmoism per the previous AfD. There is still no SIGCOV beyond the Vice article. The remaining sources here seem to be sketchy clickbaity websites. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - While the sourcing could be better, I do think it just comes by SIGCOV. As far as I can see the sources are not unreliable, but again it could be better. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@AFeatherlessBipehead: the consensus at the last AfD was that the only SIGCOV was the Vice article. What new sources have you uncovered showing notability? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I will note that all of the sources presently in the article were in the last version, which also had additional (unreliable) sources. I debated tagging this as G4, but this version is not sufficiently identical to the last version. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
See side discussion on the G4 issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note that the discussion resulted in a change to G4 that would now make this page eligible for speedy deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah okay the sourcing is not great, my vision here was more so address the issues of the article having a weird POV and style of writing, which was mentioned by users in the previous AfD. Would like to change my vote to weak keep on this one. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The article was deleted for lack of notability, not the writing style. You should not be recreating an article that was deleted by consensus unless you can establish that the subject is now notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It wasn't deleted strictly for lack of notability, it was nominated for it. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
All of the !votes were about notability. One editor said that the article was not notable and that there were tone issues; the other three !votes (including myself) were only about notability. Articles don't get deleted at AfD because of a slightly promotional tone (see WP:DINC), and I would not have nominated the article for deletion if that were the only issue with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply


Alexandra Olivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are run of the mill so do not show notability or meet WP:NAUTHOR. PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

None of the sources are run of the mill? Book reviews are how authors obtain notability. What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets AUTHOR#3. msk 22:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment: WP:NAUTHOR says "a person is likely to be notable if" they meet either #1, #2, or #3, not necessarily that they are. They still have to pass WP:GNG, which the article does not as it does not have anywhere near significant coverage of this individual. It can be debated if they even meet #3. The second is a review by a literary agent of an agency of which she is a client , and the third is not by a reliable source. Aneirinn (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Didn't catch that, thanks. Weak delete. msk 23:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    They do not necessarily have to pass GNG if they meet NAUTHOR. See this recent RfC where everybody agreed that the status quo is, if you have two (theoretically) notable works, even if they do not have their own article, then you meet NAUTHOR and can be kept. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I am not voting yet because you need at least 2 notable books to pass NAUTHOR and only 1 has been demonstrated. But no, that is not the case. If you pass NAUTHOR you are notable. All that means is no one is absolutely notable, no matter what guideline they pass - but that also goes for GNG. That is why GNG is a presumption. If we find a compelling enough reason we can rebut the presumption of any notability guideline, including the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply


Doug Allen (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography that doesn't make any real claim to notability. The person is evidently a competent guy who did a good job and was known and appreciated locally, but all sources are very local and there is no significant coverage of him in them (from what I am able to tell – the two references to wgal.com are not available in my part of the world, but since that is a local news website it wouldn't count towards notability anyway). bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply