Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solarpunk
Holy s (including nominator, who even knew about deletion sorting). Lots of claims relating to why it should be kept, but little-to-no evidence of |notability. This is what we need to keep the article: ''significant coverage'' (not mentions that it exists, not examples of the genre, not event themes, but serious discussion of it as a subject) ''in |reliable sources'' (no self-published sources like personal blogs or self-published books, no company websites, no press releases or manifestos, but rather books, newspapers, magazines, journals, or websites with a reputation for accuracy and rigor) that are ''independent of the subject'' (if it's written by someone who writes in this genre, a publisher, anyone who makes money from selling books in this genre, or otherwise anyone with a stake in any of this, it's not independent of the subject). I don't see any such links offered so far. The appearance of so many SPAs means there's almost certainly some ing/ puppetry, and seeing that automatically makes me assume go in the other direction. My skepticism increases when I see people talking about "trying to make Solarpunk a thing" (sorry to single you out) by using Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a ''lagging indicator of significance'', and by definition an encyclopedia would not cover something that is not yet a thing
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPA||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:CANVASS||WP:MEAT (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account)