Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caladbolg


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Caladbolg

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Send this one to PROD and was reverted, with an invitation to take it to AFD. There isn't significant coverage of this object in reliable independent sources, which means it fails WP:GNG. The current state is completely WP:OR. It's not that I think there is zero coverage based on WP:BEFORE / WP:POTENTIAL, but there is not enough coverage independent of the fiction to write a meaningful out of universe article. Jontesta (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Reconsider this AFD in light of recent editing to the article Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of significant scholarly discussion. I've added some, and will follow up with more later. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good start, but righ now WP:SIGCOV is not shown. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fergus mac Róich. Currently fails SIGCOV GNG requirement for stand-alon article, IMHO. But this has potential to be rescued, and I hope Nick will ping we when they are done with their expansion so I can reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise I have found (and in some cases added) several sources which support a claim to notability. From what I can find, several chapters of several books (from several authors) are dedicated to the subject. And, in at least one case, an entire book seems to be. Personally I think there is more than sufficient coverage of the subject (as a stand along topic) to warrant a standalone article. If others disagree, then - at the very least - the relevant content should be merged and the title redirected to a sub-section of the Fergus mac Róich article. While, personally, I don't think a merge/redirect is the right course of action (as it confuses the connection with other subjects, like Gáe Bulg and Caledvwlch and others), outright deletion is definitely not appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ireland. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Needs work but (altogether now) AfD isn't cleanup. Sourcing is there, you don't wanna go messing with Irish mythology... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Guliolopez. Finnegas (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.