Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grinning Man (2nd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Grinning Man
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

An obscure bit of Forteana that hasn't risen to any reasonable threshold of notability. The subject consists of claims about a specific type of supernatural entity/extraterrestrial contained in one chapter of one book by one fringe author. No coverage by reliable secondary sources found, no article improvement after 2 years. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per first AFD.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect and split, I suppose). Any useful content can go to either Mothman, John Keel, or Mothman Prophecies. This article is awful and the sources do not appear to be there to make it any better; notability is marginal at best and the small amount of worthwhile content would be better off elsewhere. Moreschi (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Plainly not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Not sure what the best target would be, I just don't think it should be deleted as saving the edit history could be beneficial in the long run, as well as merging whatever useful content there is. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply non-notable and with very poor sources. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; Non-notable splinter of forteana. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough for an entry of its own.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DeletePoorly sourced, and lacks any evidence of notability. The lede is thoroughly misleading too - it implies further reports, but the article references only three. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (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.