Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine 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 merge to Globster. Even those arguing for keeping admit that it might be better to merge this, as do most delete-!votes. Thus per WP:ATD-M this is the correct way to handle it.  So Why  15:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Globster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:109PAPERS. The term "Philippine Globster" is only used by a few unreliable conspiracy sites, while the event itself, while covered by several sources, is only routine coverage for "unusual" events and it remains to be seen if this has long-term notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At this time seems to me this should be merged, not seeing this as particularly notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * delete as a 0.9 days' wonder, or merge to list of random things washed up on beaches. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How about the actual page on the subject Globster?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would do nicely. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, these stories are a dime a dozen, no need for an article. --Krelnik (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If any WP:RS actually turn up, give it a sentence in Globster. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete in absence of good sources. In general globster articles should be fine (see the substantial list of linked articles at Globster), but the coverage needs to be there. - EDIT: more sources appearing. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with GlobsterTeeVeeed (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - good enough source? http://www.sciencealert.com/locals-are-freaking-out-over-the-massive-creatures-that-are-washing-up-in-the-phillipines?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1 Deku-shrub (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Two more: News.com.au, BBC. I think that's getting good enough for mention in Globster, although probably not a separate article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – I once removed the link to this page on Globster on the basis that it is unsourced. I can't say whether the source mentioned above passes muster, but it would have to be added to the article. In general, my opinion is that the only reason these objects remain unidentified, given that it is now possible to run DNA tests, etc, is that they are not interesting enough to be worth serious investigation. If serious investigation ever leaves a real mystery, that might rise to the level of notability.  jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment just added a BBC source from the whale/dolphin charity ORCA. I think at least it must be mentioned in Globster. Doug Weller  talk 09:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And one from Sky News. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources has been sent a sample so hopefully there will be an official announcement about the species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Well then testing does make it a bit more then just a bit of flotsam on the beach. If not keep then at least merge.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2017 (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.