Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brieselang Forest Light

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brieselang Forest Light

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an interesting one because my searches only found a few passing mentions and a few photos and this has noticeably stayed the same since being started by SPA author "Aliensearcher" in November 2006. It was tagged for improvements by Wikicology last June and, frankly, I see no better signs of it happening here and especially confirming any of this is actually accurate. It's also worth mentioning that since starting, this has simply gotten a few changes here, almost half of them IPs, and there so that's also of concern SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax unless proved otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe -- why do you think its an hoax? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is, as yet, no evidence otherwise. I am prepared to change my mind on presentation of such. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW There's enough hits when searching for it that I doubt it is a WP:HOAX in the Wikipedia sense. It may well be a tall tale that people are spining outside of Wikipedia, but that itself is not grounds to exclude it if it proves notable. Artw (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to go ahead and prove it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Proove what exactly? That people have written about it exterior to Wikipedia? sure they have, there's apparently even a book. As I say, I'm not sure that amounts to notable but it's not a hoax article. Artw (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tge sources in the external links do not seem sufficient to meet GNG, mainly falling outside of RS, and Googling doesn't throw up much better. Could possibly be brought into shape by someone who speaks German but I am not sure it is worth the effort. Artw (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe topic sourced only to four deadlinks and a web site. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While this is not an hoax, I don't see any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:02, 14 December 2015 (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.