Barbegazi: The Fantasy Encyclopedia cited in the original article does have 1 mention of this myth (I accessed it through the Internet Archive ), but it seems to be the only mention I can find, with no sources cited.  Although it is possible to Google the term and see many articles on Wikia and blogs about them, as well as a children's book published in 2018 , a model of mountain bike tyre, and another (semi-related, but not the same) creature from The Witcher series, I believe the creation of this Wikipedia article in 2005 has led to these other pages making content about this myth.  I can't find any mentions of the Alpine legendary creature "barbegazi" online in a historical context in reliable secondary sources that document folklore, or academic papers on mythology/folklore, in both English and French (from searching barbes glacées ).  I would appreciate help searching for this term in French sources as my French is limited.  This is what the Fantasy Encylopedia cited in the article writes about barbegazi, if you are not able to access it through archive.org: The barbegazi are dwarves who live in the Alps in France and Switzerland.  Their name comes from the French barbes glacées which means "frozen beards".  Their white fur clothes, as well as the icicles in their hair and beards, make them very difficult to see in the winter.  In the summer they hibernate in caves and tunnels in the rocks and do not come out until the first snowfall.  Their greatest excitement is surfing on avalanches, although they will give low whistling cries to warn humans of the danger and will do their best to dig humans out if they become trapped.  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology , France ,  and Switzerland .  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I've not heard of them.  [39] and [40] are trivial mentions, but that's about all I can find.  Winter festival using this name [41] Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried . fr and . ch websites, they seem to be mentioned in a kids book or two, but they aren't widely know.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are mentions from the 1990s that predate the creation of this wiki article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gallica only hits on an aqueduct [42] , nothing for these creatures.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invented for Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were (1985) p. 52 ?  fiveby ( zero ) 17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Is the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were a collection of existing myths, or does it make them up?  I think source-wise, barbegazi are probably notable, as there are also entries in Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore , published by McFarland & Company , which should be reliable, right?  And Nuevo inventario de criaturas fantásticas , A natural history of the unnatural world : selected files from the archives of the Cryptozoological Society of London , The Dictionary of Mythology , the mentioned Fantasy Encylopedia , and more.  It is curious, though, that so far there seems to be no source earlier that the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were , though.  Daranios ( talk ) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book by McFarland and Co seems legit, has source citations under each entry.  I'll revise my ! vote.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For ease of future reference, the sources given in McFarland and Co ( Conway's The Ancient Art of Faery Magick and Maberry's Vampire Universe) date from 2005 and 2006 respectively, so still don't predate the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were .  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on the sources given above.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now.  A number of secondary sources on the topic have been collected, establishing notability.  Some of them predate our Wikipedia article from 2005 here, excluding WP:Citogenesis from that side.  The doubts based on Talk:Barbegazi and the - so far - absence of any sources earlier than 1985 remain a problem.  But we do have sources on the topic, and only educated guesses and no sources on the doubts.  So what's to be done in such a case?  The least bad solution I can think of is keeping the article, putting up a Template:Disputed , and documenting the doubts on the talk page, until sources substantiating (or alleviating) the doubts show up.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great research, this seems like a fitting solution and I'm more than satisfied these are a notable concept.  I'm interested to know if any editors with expertise in folklore/historical research are able to find sources older than 1985.  pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Daranios .  Excellent research and impeccable logic, especially on doubts=OR note.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and add a disputed tag, per the sound reasoning of Daranios above.  – Michael Aurel ( talk ) 20:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete none of these fantasy bestiaries are reliable sources for folklore.  The authors of Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were are by no means qualified and they admit to some invention in their introduction.  This also could be the creation of comic book writers and illustrators Pierre Dubois or René Hausman as there is an appearance in La Grande Encyclopédie des lutins but can't find a copy online and don't see anything likely in Spirou "Grand fabulaire du petit peuple" .  fiveby ( zero ) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That could explain the appearance of the barbegazi with the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were .  But then what about the Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore by McFarland & Company, The Dictionary of Mythology and the Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore ?  Daranios ( talk ) 15:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those authors appear to have any relevant academic credentials, or provide any source or evidence which would validate this as folklore.  I sure haven't seen anything trustworthy yet.  fiveby ( zero ) 16:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've tried a Quebec newspaper search from 1920 to 1987, nothing turns up.  [43] , to be fair, I can only find mentions of term from 2013 forwards in this database.  A Swiss newspaper search has nothing [44] , nor a Swiss German language magazine [45] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm almost thinking these things are made-up [46] is not a reliable source, but a Czech store that sells curios, saying they're an Inuit word...  Inuits are in North America, nowhere near France or Switzerland.  Made up for he book in 1985?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reaffirming delete Having done some more searches, regardless of whether the myth is traditional folklore or not, I don't believe the current sources available are enough to warrant inclusion of barbegazi in Wikipedia.  Michael Fitzgerald Page , the author of the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were , is not a reliable source for folklore as he has no relevant credentials or history, much like the authors of the other encyclopedias.  With regard to legitimacy of the myth (I know, WP:OR ...), it may be worth noting other amateur folklorists have been unable to find sources pre-1985 as well (see [47] and [48] ).  Currently looking into finding Swiss/French sources, but haven't managed to find any mention of barbegazi in anything so far.  pinktoebeans (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a recent invention, not a legendary creature.  Reliable sources are lacking.  There is a small entry for Barbegazi in Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology , but not enough to establish notability.  I checked the cited sources in that book they are all modern.  This has no real basis in folklore and it is not cited in academic or scholarly works on folklore or legends.  Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it seems likely that this was something that was invented that other authors included in compendia.  In principle, this could make a fantasy beast notable if, for example, it gained traction beyond such lists.  But if it is just a pro forma retelling of the same claim over and over again without any addition, we are not really in the realm of standalone inclusion here.  Just too far out on the limb of WP:INUNIVERSE to be a reasonable argument for keeping an article .  There are probably ways of including some information related to this on other pages.  But that's a different question than the one posed here and I see no cogent argument for any merging, for example.  jps ( talk ) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per ජපස.  Seems to be something that someone made up and others repeated.  – dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 29 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete