Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavellan

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 keep. John254 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lavellan[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Google shows several ghits, but those aree not blogs and not all ghits are about cryptid, no hint in google scholar [1].Google books shows some ghits [2], but that is not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if Google is the criterion for notability, no wonder wikipedia is a joke. Why don't you look at the hard copy sources mentioned in the reference section? Like Dwelly's dictionary, which is unavailable online, but can be found in any Scottish library? What are ghits anyway?

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." - there are three or four of these available at least. In fact, if you look at the bottom of the article, it incorporates text from the most comprehensive Scottish Gaelic dictionary around. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. Listing on Scottish articles for deletion.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Google books hits do hint at the presence of other sources that aren't available online. I'm a bit hesitant to call this a "cryptid", though, since the speculation over this creature took place many years before modern ideas about cryptozoology. The comparison to the Mongolian death worm is definitely inappropriate. Zagalejo^^^ 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "cryptid" is a modern term, but could perhaps be applied retroactively. Some of the animals termed "cryptids" are pretty wild (no pun intended) by the terms of medieval mythology. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a great article but I am not aware of any policy that specifies a minimum number of google entries as a necessity. This might be a fair point when considering the fame of a completely new subject, such as a young athlete, band or author, but its pretty irrelevant to one that's been around for centuries. Putting up an AfD for a stub with a source from an encyclopedia strikes me as being frivolous to be honest. Vast tracts of Wikipedia are not and never will be in a hard copy encyclopedia or other reputable publication. Ben Mac Dui 07:47, 7 August 2008 (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.