Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Buddy" (Paranormal creature)


 * 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 - reliable sources haven't been provided. No reason it can't be recreated should such sources materialize. I think the effect on free speech will be minor enough to allow deletion to take place. Yomangani talk 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Buddy" (Paranormal creature)
Non-notable parannormal creature. Only source provided by the author of this article appears to be 2 user submitted reports to a the Weird New Jersey website -- No Guru 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per non. A paranormal creature that was only mentioned in a state-local magazine. If the creature is actually notable in this town, then you can give a one sentence mention of it in the Andover, New Jersey article. - Tutmosis  19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I guess. Magazine coverage pushes it just barely over the notability threshhold. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is not in reliable sources nor is there any indication of general notability. JoshuaZ 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 1. Sourcing: the 2 user submitted reports on the website are in addition to actual print coverage mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the reliability of the source is moot. Wikipedia is not a primary source, so as long as sources are properly cited, the reader is more than capable of judging the information for herself. 2. Notability: The subject matter is of a specialized nature that is not necessary interesting or appropriate to a reader interested in reading about the town itself. 3. Deletion as "Chilling Effect" on free speech: It is difficult to find sourcing since most information on subject is transmitted through local anecdote, however deleting the page will effectively deter others who are in a position to contribute more primary source information from contributing. UnderdogBA 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Among other issues reliability is a problem. Articles should be sourced from WP:RS sources. If they aren't thats a de facto WP:V problem and a strong indicator of a lack of notability. Almost by defintion, if something is notable it will have reliable sources that discuss the topic (cf for example Big Foot). Furthermore if "The subject matter is of a specialized nature that is not necessary interesting or appropriate to a reader interested in reading about the town itself" then that is an argument if anything for further non-notability- people who care about the town don't even care at all about this sibject. Finally, the claim that deletion has a chilling effect on free speech has no bearing Wikipedia policy. A) Deletion doesn't have any chilling effect. B) More importantly Wikipedia is not a free speech zone but an encyclopedia, please see WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this entry has no reliable sources, the ref ain't much more then a blog to me.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:41, 18 November 2006 (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.