Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Quarks Daily


 * 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 no consensus. Due to lack of further participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

3 Quarks Daily

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article uses peacock terms and puffery, and is supported with too many unreliable sources. It also contains text written in a promotional tone. Zai  (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Zai  (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, most of the nominator's arguments are irrelevant. For coverage to establishing notability via GNG or WP:NMEDIA, there's this piece from The Wire, but from a very quick Google search I don't see anything else yet (there's a lot of stuff about some competition they run to sort out, so it's a little tricky). My guess is that it's probably notable, but I won't !vote one way or the other until there's a more thorough search. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Sdkb. If there are terms that are puffery, it is a simple matter to just remove them.  Why throw away an article with  many internal Wikipedia links when it could rather easily be cleaned up. Most of the praise was in the section Reception, but almost all of that section has now been removed.  Moreover, the so-called Peacockery was simply quotes by well-known people who like 3 Quarks, and as far as I know, quotes are OK. There are a lot of sources.  Not all of them are unreliable.  Would we delete an article because some of it sources are unreliable.  Just delete statements that depend on these sources.  I could not find any assertions in the page that totally depended on unreliable sources.--Toploftical (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a few dead links which have now been fixed.--Toploftical (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.