Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugg

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yugg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Yugg (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)

These creatures have not been discussed by academic or journalists. Honestly, this article has no usable content. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As usual, this fancruft belongs at https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Yugg --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. These were not even invented by Lovecraft, but in fanfic. Fails the basic rules of Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the fanfic met notability thresholds this would fail WP:BKD as an inappropriate split, the author should consider alternative outlets. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete; I think "fanfic" is unfair (or at least carries some connotations that don't apply here), but I agree that secondary sourcing is lacking. Unless some can be identified, this can't really have its own article. A very selective merge/redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos wouldn't hurt. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2019 (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.