Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FidoNet Star Wars Echo (2nd nomination)

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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FidoNet Star Wars Echo

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

Lack of significant, reliable, independent sources, I don't think that TheForce.Net can count for this. Previous AfD was kept in 2009 and tagged for sources which still seem to be none. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While probably significant to participants and a select group of Star Wars fans, I find no evidence it achieved much attention by reliable, independent, third-party sources, per WP:GNG. TheForce.net may be somewhat independent, but I don't think they have an established reputation for editorial discretion and fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, and in any case a single source generally isn't sufficient to establish notability. I find it gets mentioned as existing in a sentence in this book, but existence does not equal notability. The previous Afd had 3 keeps (two of them weaks), were based on "it's interesting" and "needs better citations", but none better have been found. Note that deletion from Wikipedia doesn't mean obliteration from the internet, as a nearly identical article is at Star Wars Wikia, which is where in-universe lore and fan trivia may flourish, more power to them. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really per Animalparty's cogent discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2015 (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.