Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Serene Day

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. ✗plicit 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Serene Day[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source, ever, mentioning this proposed event appears to be the proposal itself, in the newsletter of an organization that... is proud to have some tenuous connection to some UN events, I guess? [1] It's a bit of a rabbit hole. In any case, not a chance at notability after removing all the vaguely related padding in the article (most of which I already cut out). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elmidae,

Thank you very much for reviewing the page.

The original source of this proposed event appears in the video of the UN Web TV, starting at time 3045:

https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1n/k1nbhfzuj4?kalturaStartTime=3045

The talk by Dr. Chaitanya Hiremath is about 4 minutes. He was introduced and thanked by the moderator of the meeting on Interactive dialogue of the General Assembly on Harmony with Nature in Commemoration of International Mother Earth Day on 22 April 2022.

Dr. Hiremath is the founder and president of 501c3 non-profit organization, SEALOEarth. This organization in Special Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC since 2017.

https://sealoearth.org/doc/SpecialConsultativeStatus2017.pdf

Hope this proof of the proposed event is sufficient to keep the page on International Serene Day on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Kugold (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Mentioning something in a speech is not sufficient to make it WP:NOTABLE. We require a good deal of coverage by third-party, uninvolved sources for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it is unfortunate that multiple he-said-she-said articles are preferred over a verifiable and independent source aka straight from the horse's mouth. There is a difference between a light sprinkle and a heavy shower. It is not speech on TikTok, it was a presentation on the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages at the same time. Thank you. Kugold (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source IS found - the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages. Also, the comment "doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept" contradicts the Wikipedia policy, namely, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY". Kugold (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source. Singular. Featuring the originator. Do you not see the problem with that? No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, just reiterating the policy, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY".

Clearly, the comment "No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to" refers to POPULARITY.

Also, according to the policy, "Primary sources that have been REPUTABLY published may be USED in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".

Most would agree that the United Nations (UN) is REPUTABLE.

Therefore, this page is acceptable and deserves to be kept.

Thank you for your consideration. Kugold (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My consideration says that you are flailing around trying to extract notability from a single, primary source. This notion culd be as "popular" as free beer, and we still couldn't have an article on it unless a sufficient number of independent sources covering it exist. Or the other way round, something may be hugely unpopular but if enough sources write about it, we can have an article. You can accept that or not, but it won't change how your article is perceived and assessed here. Over and out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in independent, secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant third-party coverage in sources that meet WP:RS. Look at the article creator's contributions, it's highly likely that they are Chaitanya Hiremath and that this is nothing more than self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:02, 16 October 2022 (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.