The result was no consensus. Anonymous 07:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Seems to fail to meet GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to fail to meet Event notability guidelines: (1) Almost certainly no enduring historical significance (2) No impact and not analyzed in sources, there is basically no coverage of this and it goes to no depth at all, at best summarizing the declaration. Phiarc (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Original
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Keeps are, so far, a wide variety of incredibly weak points such as "deleting is censorship", ITSIMPORTANT, ILIKEIT, notability is inherited from the signers, this will be important, and the media is covering this up. None of them will be given much weight. Please focus your discussion on how this topic meets or does not meet policy, such as the GNG or a SNG --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
[...] Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and myself in London in June this year (hence "Westminster"). It was that group that developed the declaration [...]So let's look to see if an article can be properly written.
Of course this won't have hit the history books or the political science journals yet, but I checked anyway. There's nothing. So there are no high quality sources from political experts to be had. That leaves only one pool of possible sources: news reporting. Well, the search engines all give me articles that are all marked as the same number of days old. Unsurprisingly, all of the sources cited in the article are all the same date, too, give or take timezone differences. It's 1 news cycle, with many of the stories largely identical and not providing much in-depth analysis; and then nothing at all. I independently found the article by The Telegraph, for example, and 9 paragraphs were it just quoting the document wholesale unfiltered, with the remainder being paraphasing. This indicates that there isn't much in the way of reliable independent good quality sourcing to be had, and what there is isn't in-depth and hasn't been followed up on.
This doesn't meet the notability bar.
Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)