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. No evidence of WP:LASTING coverage to achieve notability. Appears to be a briefly reported "water cooler" item per WP:EVENTCRIT point 4. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Yeti (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)

Fails GNG due to lack of lasting notability. Coverage consists solely of unverified reports from 2010 with no follow-up beyond a single news cycle. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a thing and we keep articles which meet out GNG. In regard to the nominator's rationale about continued coverage- notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Huff post, The Sunday Times, and New Indian Express Lightburst (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NTEMP is a bit of a red herring. Yes, notability is not temporary, but that only applies if the subject was once notable. The point the nominator was making is that this is effectively just a single news event with no lasting coverage or impact, and thus was never notable, making NTEMP irrelevant. I agree with them - this article might as well be 'alleged discovery of oriental yeti' and the criteria that most obviously apply are WP:EVENTCRIT. This clearly misses categories 1 and 2 and most neatly falls into category 4: "shock news", "water cooler story" or viral phenomenon lacking lasting value despite briefly receiving substantial coverage in reliable sources. Hug^syrup 16:51, 15 January 2020 (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.