![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 March 17. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Opinions are split, but the "delete" side makes better arguments: they explain why they think the available sources are insufficient, whereas the "keep" side does not explain why they think the sources are sufficient. Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
All the current sourcing is either primary or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage, just more mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I added two sources, one article from the guardian, talking about the launch of the campaign and referring directly to the campaign's website. The second is UNHCR article, talking about the campaign and the activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abs11a ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some input, or possibly a merger target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
*Keep I think everyone has missed academic writing about their work, which I had now added. They are mentioned a few times, I could have added more, but not very in depth. However,
FEMINIST FORESIGHT IN STATELESSNESS: CENTURY-OLD CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY CAMPAIGNS does talk about the in depth.
CT55555 (
talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional arguments that explicitly evaluate sources in light of a relevant notability guideline would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 March 17. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Opinions are split, but the "delete" side makes better arguments: they explain why they think the available sources are insufficient, whereas the "keep" side does not explain why they think the sources are sufficient. Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
All the current sourcing is either primary or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage, just more mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I added two sources, one article from the guardian, talking about the launch of the campaign and referring directly to the campaign's website. The second is UNHCR article, talking about the campaign and the activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abs11a ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some input, or possibly a merger target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
*Keep I think everyone has missed academic writing about their work, which I had now added. They are mentioned a few times, I could have added more, but not very in depth. However,
FEMINIST FORESIGHT IN STATELESSNESS: CENTURY-OLD CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY CAMPAIGNS does talk about the in depth.
CT55555 (
talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional arguments that explicitly evaluate sources in light of a relevant notability guideline would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)