Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuk-luk

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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 19:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuk-luk

[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)

Entirely unsourced; the only source previously in the article was unreliable fringe writer Loren Coleman. WP:BEFORE search returned only fringe coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep it source it....seems to be lots of sources in the link above. Is the cotent being contested or the concept?--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy There are indeed a large number of Google and GBooks hits, but all of them seem to be fringe sources that do not establish notability per WP:NFRINGE. Are there any in particular that you would recommend adding to the article? –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly no reliable sources appear to exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can actually locate evidence of reliable sources to support its notability better than this completely unreferenced article does. We would have to keep total hoaxes if merely saying "keep it source it" was all you had to do to stave off deletion — anybody could simply say that better sources are available for absolutely anything if they merely had to say it and had no responsibility to actually prove it. So we do not keep unsourced articles just because somebody speculates that better sources might exist somewhere that nobody has actually found — rather, we consider the sources that people show. So if you want to save an unsourced article, then it's your job to find and show the sources it would take to make a difference. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see sources dating back to 1965 to publication from 2017. This is the problem with the dark side of Wikipedia. ...no effort. before nomination...I see many many hits even crap media sources. .. let alone Google Books explaining it. common enough its in the New Yorker.--Moxy 🍁 17:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us can speak to the work done by other editors before commenting here, but I can say that my deletion nomination is based on an assessment of results in the Find Sources links above. My practice is to assess the quality, not the quantity of sources; I'm well aware of the existence of "crap media sources", numerous books by fringe authors, and the single Google News result, but none of these meet our standards for significant coverage in reliable sources.

The New Yorker source mentions the Nuk-luk exactly once, in a list of mythological beings "closely related" to the Yeti. This is about as trivial as it gets.

When I set GBooks to search for results from 1965, it returned only results that happen to contain the syllables "nuk" and "luk" which seem to be fairly common in various languages. Please enlighten us if you've had better luck. I admire editors who are able to dig up reliable sources that I happen to miss, but your unsupported claims that sources exist are worthless. You should be well aware that we do not determine notability based on the number of search results. –dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Dlthewave, we evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of search results. A source which mentions the topic's name in the process of being about something else (like that New Yorker hit) would show up in a Google search, but would not be about the topic for the purposes of establishing its notability. An unreliable source that isn't usable at all (like a blog, or a self-published book written by a fringe theorist and published by a print-on-demand house without editorial oversight) would show up in a Google search. And on and so forth: not everything that Google finds is actually a usable or notability-making hit. So you still can't just say there are sources: to actually make a difference you have to show specific sources, preferably by actually adding them to the article but at absolute minimum by listing at least three solid sources in this discussion, that are reliable and substantively about the topic. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular alternative name for Bigfoot in Canada--2605:8D80:564:E76B:586E:5D40:9A75:FF64 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which, if proven, would earn this title a redirect to Bigfoot, not a standalone article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Bearcat Dartslilly (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2019 (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.