Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bükrek and Sangal

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bükrek and Sangal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article fails WP:GNG and there is no evidence in WP:RS that such a myth truly exists. See my explanations at the DYK nomination: this article initially relied on Türk Söylence Sözlüğü by Deniz Karakurt, which is a self-published e-book by an accountant, with its references section explicitly stating that it features "original interpretation" and citing Wikipedia as well as a novel by the book's author. Following its self-publication in 2011, Wikipedia was used a forum to disseminate the claims in this book, to such an extent that I am currently carrying out a systematic cleanup on tr.wiki, where I'm an administrator. There are a bunch of other sources that are either completely unreliable (again, see DYK discussion) or can be traced back to Karakurt's book, for example, the master's thesis by Hilal Sansar, currently cited in the article, cites a book by Bahattin Uslu (2017, Türk Mitolojisi), which in turn refers back to Karakurt for all information about Bükrek and Sangal. As such, all post-2011 literature should be viewed with caution.

The Gazete Duvar source, currently within the article, refers to another recent book by Bülent Uslu, which I haven't been able to access; however I can confirm that Bülent Uslu has no academic credentials related to this topic. The current content in the article about the Pelasgians has absolutely no relevance established in WP:RS to a Turkic dragon and as such is a WP:SYNTH violation.

Finally, as detailed in the DYK nom, I have checked some volumes of reliable academic literature in Turkish, including two books with chapters on mythical dragons, and none mentioned Bükrek or Sangal. All of this makes me think that these dragons are fictitious later inventions. The article has been deleted on tr.wiki as the result of an AfD. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I have no objection to this being deleted, nor being kept if someone improves it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2022 (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.