Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee

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 merge to Cthulhu Mythos species#Byakhee. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byakhee

[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The recently added reference is not sufficient, as the topic is only mentioned in passing and in the form of a WP:PLOT summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate this and every other article in Category:Cthulhu Mythos species into a single article called Cthulhu Mythos species.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is documented in numerous secondary works such as The Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana. The nomination's claims are therefore false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to provide page numbers, links and ideally quotations, so your claims can be verified? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - False or nominator is mistaken in Andrew's opinion. Andy! Come on mate :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cthulhu Mythos species There is no proof that the Byakhees have been seriously studied. Furthermore, I doubt that most of the species in Category:Cthulhu Mythos species are notable. Most of them should be merged into that hypothetical list. The Deep Ones, the Elder Things and the Shoggoths are the only ones who may deserve their own articles. Ghoul is actually about the mythological creature, so I removed it from the category. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Susmuffin: Just a note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpent Men was closed as keep few months ago. So that would make presumably four that should stay. On the other hand, the current content of Deep One seems like 100% fancruft and 0% scholarly analysis... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Festival for now, pending the creation of the proposed Cthulhu Mythos species article. Information on the creature in non-fictional sources is pretty scant, and largely relegated to plot information that is not sufficient to support an independent article. I support the idea of the proposed main article on the minor mythos creatures, but until that is done, this article can be Redirected to the article on The Festival, the story they were first featured in. If the proposed article is actually developed during the span of this AFD, then my recommendation can be counted instead as a Merge to it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and second choice Merge into Cthulhu Mythos species - another mystical character with no coverage... I second the nominator's assessment. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Festival, which is the appropriate level of coverage. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources only cover this in a WP:PLOT summary way, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to pass the WP:GNG. Would accept a merge if there is a consensus around target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, for the time being to Cthulhu Mythos species. As has been stated, byakhee do appear in secondary sources, so this should not be deleted. In addition to the source in the article, and those mentioned by Andrew, there's the Enciclopedia de los Mitos de Cthulhu and The Art of Playing Mythos the Cthulhu Collectable Card Game. Byakhee have also appeared in a great many novels as well as games inspired by Lovecraft, as the last secondary source is testament of. I am not sure how this is ranked with regard to notability. (If something like a list of appearances of byahkee in popular culture would be attempted, that would probably be needed to WP:SPLIT off again from the proposed target due to its scope.) Aside from a minor point in the VERBATIM magazine, I cannot say if there is analysis beyond plot description. That's mostly because I cannot access all the secondary sources, including The Shadow over Derleth: Disseminating the Mythos in The Trail of Cthulhu. Can anyone here? If more can be found I will be happy to change my opinion to keep. Daranios (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (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.