Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joever: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Joever: Reply |
Ammended opening statement |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:{{la|1=Joever}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joever|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24#{{anchorencode:Joever}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1236417182/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
:{{la|1=Joever}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joever|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24#{{anchorencode:Joever}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1236417182/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
||
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Joever}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Joever}}) |
||
The article only contains one reliable secondary source that |
The article <strike>only contains one reliable secondary source</strike> [Ammendment: The Forbes source was written by a contributor] contains no reliable secondary sources that talk about the word "joever". The rest are sources that use the word in their headlines. This fails the [[WP:general notability|general notability]] criteria because the topic does not have 1) signifcant coverage in 2) secondary sources. The only other coverage I could find in reliable sources is trivial mentions. [[User:ArcticSeeress|ArcticSeeress]] ([[User talk:ArcticSeeress|talk]]) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:* '''Redirect to Wiktionary'''. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is [[WP:FORBESCON]]. |
:* '''Redirect to Wiktionary'''. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is [[WP:FORBESCON]]. |
||
Revision as of 16:47, 24 July 2024
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Joever (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)
The article only contains one reliable secondary source [Ammendment: The Forbes source was written by a contributor] contains no reliable secondary sources that talk about the word "joever". The rest are sources that use the word in their headlines. This fails the general notability criteria because the topic does not have 1) signifcant coverage in 2) secondary sources. The only other coverage I could find in reliable sources is trivial mentions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wiktionary. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is WP:FORBESCON.
- -1ctinus📝🗨 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not realize that the Forbes article was unreliable; I will ammend my opening statement. That brings the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources down to zero. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)