Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Amulet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Stubs aren't good unless any notability can be established. Sr13 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhu Amulet

Cthulhu Amulet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is on a product based on a mythos. It was redirected rather than being nominated for deletion by another user, so I bring it. A non-notable product that is not backed by reliable sources. Even its manufacturer is admittedly unverifiable. I am AfD'ing because I think a PROD removal may go unnoticed, and the article is not fitting for speedy deletion. I removed external links previously in the article that directed toward forums and other inappropriate links. Keegantalk 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - It looks like something akin to advertising to me. Even if it's not, I doubt very much it's notable. --Agamemnon2 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well, as an owner of one of those things I could testify those amulets are truly remarkable. Too bad the article has source problems, but those might be common for items distributed exclusively by means of Internet. The biggest problem I see is that the author is hardly verifiable (the best I could find on him is the amulet's author live journal, but, according to policy that is not a good source. However, shoggoth.net has an article on this amulets, and it has an editorial review process. An editor reviews material and corrects factual errors and omissions prior to publishing any article there. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , sites that have explicit editorial oversight may be used as sources. Also, the "Table of malcontents" link could qualify as "blog written by a recognized authority", which are allowed to be sources according to WP:EL --VR999 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ADD: Forgot to link the Shoggoth.net article - here is it [1] --VR999 11:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it exists (or that you have it and find it remarkable) does not matter. This is WP:CRUFT at its best.--Svetovid 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
--With all due respect, I didn't claim this fact matters. This was merely an introductory statement, which, obviously, was not part of the argument per se --VR999 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep All right people, I agree there is a source problem, but it appears this item was mentioned in a printed catalogue (one of the larger Russian jewelery catalogs, with ISBN)... I really hope I can find it, and that it has an English version I could quote. _ And even if I fail miserably at that task, Shoggoth.net does have an editorial review process (and a rather strict and annoying one, for a RPG resource, at least), and thus, under current Wikipedia policy, it counts as a "source". So, keep anyway. --AlexeyTOD 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So what does that source prove anyway? That this item exists? That is not the point. This is not notable enough to have its page.--Svetovid 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. So there's a bit of Lovecraftiana, and apparently some kind of legend or theory about it has sprung up among Lovecraft fans, who blogged about it or wrote Usenet posts. The item remains a not particularly notable commercial product, and this article fails to make a case for notability and lacks reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: It doesn't have to have anything more than a "source problem" to fail WP:V; that's the fundamental criterion every article on Wikipedia must follow.  RGTraynor  14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


@  RGTraynor , Smerdis of Tlön, please forgive my noobish ignorance, but are the notability and verifiability demands for stubs (and the article we discuss now is labled as a stub) the same as for "normal" articles? Aren't "stubs" supposed to be little pieces of context with very superficial sourcing left for others to build upon? It is the impression I got when reading Wikipedia:Stub. --AlexeyTOD 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They're exactly the same. A stub isn't expected to show up with extensive sourcing, but our contention here isn't so much that this article lacks proper sourcing, but that no proper sources are likely to be found. I mean, c'mon. We're talking about a bit of fannish tinware that Some Anonymous Guy is reputed to be selling in Russia, and that (according to the article) a single unnamed Usenet user speculated might be encoded in some unproven way. It doesn't get much more unverifiable than that. Nor do we have particular proof that the sole source, shoggoth.net, employs vigorous fact-checking and editorial control. Moreover, even if we had all of that ... a proven, named creator, positive affirmation on the encoding thing, and a verifiable advertisement in a major, reputable newspaper, it would still be nothing more than a merchandised item that falls far below notability standards. That's the problem with the article, not that it is presently labelled a stub.  RGTraynor  20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Feed it to the Shoggoths (=Delete) fancruft with a commercial angle, big deal, nn. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fancruft Bigdaddy1981 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable in any way. -- Necrothesp 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
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.