Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebrides blob

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. czar 22:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrides blob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable news item with no lasting coverage or significance. WP:BEFORE search returned numerous fringe cryptozoological sources but not enough reliable sources to establish notability or write a quality article. –dlthewave ☎ 21:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: very limited coverage suggests a lack of significance and notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing any notabilitySlatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (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.