Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal reports

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. Sandstein 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcha Faal reports

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

The references don't refer directly to Sorcha Faal. If the website isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article, then a single contributor certainly isn't. Lrieber (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't a biography, and it isn't about the website. The topic of the article is the reports that appear on the website. Those reports do have significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore the topic merits an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the RSes are significant coverage, all appear to be treating the reports as novelty objects of fun, generally in passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the news articles are referring to the website rather than "Sorcha Faal". Maybe redirect to a new article on whatdoesitmean.com? Would still need cleanup though. Lrieber (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I note, the references don't even say anything about the actual website either. You can see much discussion on the name for the article on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete - it was killed at AFD once already (as Sorcha Faal), it was resurrected as a completely credulous bio, then when the puffery and source abuse was removed it was pivoted sideways to focus on the reports. The reports are barely notable or spoken of in the press except as objects of fun - all the reporting is "look at the silly thing!" and none of the citations in the article is actually about the site. There is no actual information available on the source of the reports; the article contains no actual information about the reports except that they exist and some press makes fun of them in passing mentions. There is nothing about the person or organisation writing them. There isn't enough notability nor verifiable reliably-sourced information here for an article - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see enough, or really any, coverage in RS about the subject to pass GNG or NORG. At best the analogy here would be using a reporter's bylines as sources for their personal notability which we do not do. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of these reports as a group to pass WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2016 (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.