Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limnor (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limnor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under procedural grounds, (Personal attack removed). --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedural reason to go against this and stop accusing other editors of being LTAs without evidence. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable, almost zero reliable sources turning up on a search most are primary. No real news or discussions about it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no book sources either. Tails Wx 00:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any reliable sources myself, and no evidence the subject can meet any notability standard. What "procedural grounds" does Amitie 10g allege are valid here? Ravenswing 04:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How this article ever came into existence with exactly zero references is rather concerning and it's a tautology to state it fails WP:N with that in mind. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually seems like a kind of interesting project, but as others have noted above, there are no WP:RS establishing the topic's WP:Notability (nor indeed any sources at all) in the article, nor did a brief search by myself turn any up. As such this is a clear WP:SNOW call. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:53, 29 January 2023 (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.