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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cariuma[edit]

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

Looks not-notable, with no reliable independent, in-depth sources BoraVoro (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess sources presented against our RS guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with A.B. about the plethora of news articles from Google News. The line between promotion, review, and "objective" information is fuzzy but the notability is not in question. Kazamzam (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2023 (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.