From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|
There is 1 piece of coverage that is firmly sigcov, a lengthy article from Pirate Wires. The RSN RFC on Pirate Wires held it to be between marginally reliable/generally unreliable, which makes its usage as the only clearly sigcov source, poor. The article has resultingly been plastered in “better source needed” tags. All other sources are too short to count towards the GNG. Even these passing mentions are also largely related to 1 event, the 4chan hack. The ADL source has less than a paragraph on them. The Daily Dot piece is not sigcov. |
There is 1 piece of coverage that is firmly sigcov, a lengthy article from Pirate Wires. The RSN RFC on Pirate Wires held it to be between marginally reliable/generally unreliable, which makes its usage as the only clearly sigcov source, poor. The article has resultingly been plastered in “better source needed” tags. All other sources are too short to count towards the GNG. Even these passing mentions are also largely related to 1 event, the 4chan hack. The ADL source has less than a paragraph on them. The Daily Dot piece is not sigcov. |
||
|
It is untenable to have an article where |
It is untenable to have an article where the entire thing is plastered in a “better source needed” tag. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
*<small class=”delsort-notice”>Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class=”delsort-notice”>Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)</small> |
||
Revision as of 02:21, 4 January 2026
- Soyjak.party (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)
There are not any independent, reliable, significant sources to count for notability. As I expect this AfD will attract attention, here is a reminder: to count for notability per WP:GNG, a source needs to be all three of a) reliable (a source that can be trusted to be reliable for facts, like an established news organization or scholarly article) b) independent (not affliated with the subject of the article) and c) significant (giving an amount of coverage of the subject substantial enough where no original research is required to extract the meaning, e.g. several hundred words in length in its content about the subject). If a source fails one of these, it does not count towards GNG.
There is 1 piece of coverage that is firmly sigcov, a lengthy article from Pirate Wires. The RSN RFC on Pirate Wires held it to be between marginally reliable/generally unreliable, which makes its usage as the only clearly sigcov source, poor. The article has resultingly been plastered in “better source needed” tags. All other sources are too short to count towards the GNG. Even these passing mentions are also largely related to 1 event, the 4chan hack. The ADL source has less than a paragraph on them. The Daily Dot piece is not sigcov.
It is untenable to have an article where the entire thing is plastered in a “better source needed” tag, and we do not have any other sigcov sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
