Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange night visitors


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange night visitors

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. (Plus unsourced: the one link is to a website that does not appear to meet WP:RS.) I got a total of 23 unique google hits for the phrase, of which: one was a hit for Wikipedia, 6 were posts in Yahoo Answers, three were irrelevant happenstance uses of the phrase, and three were about Pinocchio. This left 10 uses. Even on the non-WP:RS forums, individuals who seemed to be regular posters were saying they had never heard of the term. &mdash; BillC talk 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's research. Additionally, the link in the article is basically a one-page site on a free web host, which was apparently created just to give the appearance of legitimacy to the article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to be a fortean term used elsewhere for this meaning, and though it touches on other reported phenomena all of them are well covered here. Artw (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless there is some other name under which this is known. There is some assertion of notability, but the references I find just do not cut it. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Along with Things that go bump in the night -- consign such colloquialisms to encyclopedic oblivion. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, if referenced wouldnt be the most leftfield article on wikipedia though Jw2035 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (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.