Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horerczy

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. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horerczy

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

Highly implausible stub on an alleged "demonic creature from German folklore", implausible because the name is quite obviously not German (if anything it might be Polish). Only source is a self-published "Encyclopedia of Vampires [etc.]" by a author, Rosemary E. Guiley, who describes herself as a "leading expert on the paranormal" [1] (the "encyclopedia" is published by her own "visionary living" brand that is also her website). Clearly not a WP:RS. No other trace of this creature on Google books that isn't either a Wikipedia mirror or by Guiley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks dodgy. Note that a version of this also appears to have been created on the Spanish Wikipedia in the last month if so (it's over a year old on en.wp). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination misrepresents the sources. This is published by Infobase Publishing as it this and are not self-published. Infobase is widely used as a reliable publishing sources on Wikipedia. All it needs is expansion with further research. 197.237.27.42 (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One author of generic textbooks is not enough. When collating large amounts of information it is easy to get things wrong. When looking for other sources to confirm or disprove the existence of the "Horerczy", I happened upon the Routledge Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons. No mention of it, but there was this hilarious entry: "Hubal: Pre-Islamic god venerated in central Arabia. His anthropomorphic image in red carnelian still stands in the Ka'aba in Mecca.". Routledge is a reliable publisher, but try adding that "fact" to the Hubal or Kaaba articles! We need at least one other source for this. If no-one else mentions it, that's evidence that it doesn't exist in folklore. Of course, it's possible that it's an unusual spelling, or alternate name for an authentic mythic creature, but I can't find anything to suggest that so far. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Vampires article. Minimal notability has been met. Can be expanded with more reliable sources added. Also, it is a Polish word, not German. It may have "originated" in German folklore, but it is a Polish word. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alp (folklore) or delete. This is just a stub anyway. I've made an effort to find a reference to a creature (under any name) that breathes forth Alp-butterflies, but can't find any indication of any such creature in any source other than Guiley. No other book that I have found discusses it in connection with Alps. Of course folklore is famously variable and mutable, so it may well be that somewhere sometime there was a belief in a creature that breathed out Alps, but we have only one writer saying so - so far. In any case it is far better in the substantial Alp (folklore) article, attributed to Guiley as the sole source. Obviously if other independent sources are located, it could be kept. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable source? I quote from Ms Guiley's account of her most recent important discoveries: "My research on the Djinn has uncovered their presence in every paranormal experience and all phenomena, from hauntings to attachments to alien abductions. The Djinn are superior shape-shifters and can easily masquerade as entities for which we have given other names." Fortunately she's protected from them because "I have a strong connection to the angelic realm that I have energized through meditation and prayer for years." Paul B (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Seems like a fictional entity. Rmhermen 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources appear unreliable and the article fails WP:V. Additionally I have doubts that this article passes WP:STUB as there seems very limited prospects for expansion into a stand alone encyclopedic article. Am open to reconsideration if sufficient RS sources are found. Absent at least some kind of RS sourcing there is nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInfobase, Facts on File, etc are as reliable as their authors. Rosemary Ellen Guiley is definitely not a reliable source. Nothing on Google.de either that helps. Don't merge as there is no reliable source showing this is part of German Folklore. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched Google, HighBeam, JSTOR, NewsBank, Newspapers.com, and Questia, leading me to conclude that there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.- Mr X 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source Bhny (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is actual German mythology. Apart from a few self-published sources there are no mentions of this mythological creature. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ZERO mention in reliable independent secondary sources. Sources used are self-published blither. Very unlikely that reliable sources will ever be found, as it reeks of amateur fabrication. My own searches, in English, German and Polish turned up nothing but junk. Can be deleted in its entirety. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been searching for possible sources on JSTOR, Google Books and Google. The only sources I have been able to find are Guiley's books, fan sites and wikis. There are no manuscripts, prints, pictures, ect. from the time period indicating that the Horerczy was part of German (or any culture’s) folklore. Likewise, I have been unable to find any scholarly studies on the entity from a reputable historian, cultural anthropologist, ect. The only sources I was able to find were wikis, fan sites and Guiley’s books. Wikis and fan sites are not reputable sources. As for Guiley, I would encourage everyone to read through her website [2]. Due to serious concerns regarding the reliability of Guiley and the lack of any other reliable sources, my final vote is to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject is notable if it received significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:N. In this case, we do have coverage in some sources, the question is whether these are reliable. Given that (i) the author is not a renowned expert in the field; (ii) there are renownerd experts in the field, and there are reliable sources published by them, but as per discussion none was found which mentions the subject, I am inclined to conclude that the sources in the article are not reliable and thus the subject fails WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2014 (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.