Talk:2cDM model of dark matter

Removing Maintenance Template

What is a good threshold for removing the template? We have a good number of links in my opinion, but I’m not sure about the citations. I will remove the warning about links but I’ll keep the citations needed one for now. Sir Macaw 18:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The sources are inappropriate. Arxiv articles are self-published, so cannot be used. In addition having just one source on the topic does not support notability.

Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Lacking Notability

I believe, unfortunately this page does not meet the requirements at WP:Notability and I’m proposing it for deletion. Sir Macaw 17:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Macaw, please provide an argument as to why you consider this fails notability. Just a simple statement such as the above and what you included with the PROD is not convincing. (I am not passing any judgement about notability, just pointing out that a statement like the above is not enough.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think “Not meeting reqirements at WP:NOTE because there is only a few non self published sources about the model thus it dosn’t meet the significnt coverage requiremet for notability.” is a satisfactory reason? 𝒮𝒾𝓇_𝑀𝒶𝒸𝒶𝓌 18:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not enough otherwise I would have done either a PROD or AfD when I tagged it. Ozzie10aaaa cleaned up the self-published citations (added the journal, not just the arxiv). Did you do a proper WP:Before and search for sources not quoted? Since Ozzie10aaaa also deleted the notability tag they are de-facto contesting a PROD for the grounds you propose. If it is only notability you should do AfD, not PROD. There too you have to justify. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw you removed the PROD. If you feel strongly look at WP:AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)