Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broodwork

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broodwork (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)

Topic lacks notability and significant coverage Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Kpgjhpjm 06:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks notability. Some of the sources are 404. The NYT piece is an opinion piece. Even if the subject satisfies notability, I think this page is quite dismal and needs TNT. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TheLonelyPather, I can't really put it better myself. —Sirdog (talk) 05:28, 12 August 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.