Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koranic fish

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. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koranic fish

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

Article about a non-notable news story with no useful content. Deyh (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage on BBC and in the NYT about this story. Suspect there may be more sources available in Arabic or other non-English languages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see how that brief NYT article demonstrates the notability of the story. There are thousands of news stories reported every single day, many of them in multiple newspapers, but, at least IMO, only the most notable should have articles on Wikipedia. Also note that this fish does not even have a name. The term "Koranic fish" as appears in the BBC article seems to be a description (it appears only once in the title), while the NYT article does not have the term at all. Deyh (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it seems you disagree with the WP:N guideline and are using some higher standard for inclusion in Wikipedia-- "most notable" rather than notable. Lots of people disagree with aspects the guideline one way or another, but I have not heard this particular concept--the place to argue for it is WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no useful information in the article that would enable me to be really clear, but either it's a "single event" and therefore falls within WP:NOTNEWS or alternatively the article fails to provide independent neutral sources detailing its notability. I would change my vote to Keep if the article were improved and more sources were added showing its cultural impact. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The only issue here is notability- I recall pulling up carrots as a kid and some of them had two roots joined and looked like legs, you read about passing appearance of Jesus or Mary on trees etc. I've been a big defender or both religious things and 'obscure but notable' but based on the current article this looks like delete or merge unless someone can find more note- maybe some academic papers written on the fish, large events, etc otherwise maybe merge into a list of places where people found order in noise like seeing the human face on the moon etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be expected that many of them would be found in sources that not all of us can read. Has anyone who knows pertinent languages actually looked? But it does not take scholarly coverage to make something notable--newspapers are quite sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources show that this is more than a trivial news story about an individual fish. We don't have articles about every incident in which somebody sees a religious pattern in something, nor do we need them. Sandstein 05:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looking at the reference, plus the google hits, after 3+ years, it seems it is all built upon a single BBC report. This is not sufficient for an article, it's just a curiosity, with a single source. If only there were newer sources with ongoing information. Without that, I presume that someone ate the fish, or it died in a tank. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2009 (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.