Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gutviga

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. Notability was claimed, as stated below, but not backed up and verified. David Fuchs (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gutviga

Gutviga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article doesn't assert its subject's notability. huji—TALK 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. If a folk tale is remembered from the 17th century, that's a claim to notability, and if the content is true it should generally pass WP:N. Having said that, this does at the moment fail WP:V and ghits are low. No 'vote' on my part.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough to keep. Gary King (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certainly asserts notability, but doesn't substantiate it. I would have expected a character such as this one to at least get a few hits in Google Books or Scholar, but there's nothing, so I'm a bit suspicious about this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. The only sources I can find are Wikipedia mirrors! (Speaking of which, what the *&^%#@! is this Wikipedia mirror!?! All the words are intentionally misspelled in a dyslexic manner, obviously by some software. Wild!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCB (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per MCB. I looked at ALL the Ghits for Gutviga (and there are only 25) and none have anything more than is in the article. Most are simple copies of the Wikipedia entry (or the entry here is a copy of one of them.) If this were a C17th folk tale, I'd agree that it would be notable. But then it would have been collected and published, and would show up in a search. I suspect it is nothing of the sort, but even if it passes WP:N, it presently fails WP:V. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (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.