Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Mile Globster

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. Clear consensus to remove the article, but it's not so clear if a merge, a redirect or plain deletion are warranted. The most compelling argument presented in the latter regard is that there are apparently no reliable sources to endorse the content, so deletion it is ... but people can add redirects at editorial discretion and perhaps ask at WP:REFUND for the page history should good sourcing surface. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four Mile Globster

[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)

Article is currently supported only by fringe cryptozoological sources, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to return significant RS coverage. The very idea that a rotting mass of flesh has "flippers" and "hair" represents a fringe viewpoint and no mainstream sources exist that could be used to write a balanced, NPOV-compliant article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete One of the less well-known globsters. --Auric talk 23:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Globster#Notable globsters. Not quite enough here to have an article, and a short description can be added to the listing in the globster page. Hog Farm (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Not enough blob to glob on its own. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not worth a redirect since the suggested section Globster#Notable globsters is for notable globsters. This globster is not notable so a deletion is the best approach IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Something in the back of my mind tells me I have heard of this, but it is not well sourced. Thus its merge rather then delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. Not enough for own article but can be included in main list. Bookscale (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think delete is better than redirect here because it is not a notable globster, and that list should remain a list of notable things people call globsters (and not just anything any fringe source calls a globster). – Levivich 22:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant RS-qualifying coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 18 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.