Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coje Ya Menia (creature)


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Coje Ya Menia (creature)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This creature crops up in cryptozoology publications from legitimate publishers. I added some information to the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vexations' comments throughout. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the subject does come up in cryptozoological publications, but that doesn't mean we can use those sources. It cites On the Track of Unknown Animals for example, but that book is unusable pseudoscience. One acceptable way source articles about mythical creatures, is to source it to reliable secondary sources that discuss their mythography in a scholarly way. No such sources have been provided for this subject, nor do any appear to exist, per my searches. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Author request, I am relying the request of the author that this be draftified.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep :i) Notability
 * The Original referrer of the Coje Ya Menia, Ilse von Nolde is notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.(also in same way, Ingo Krumbiegel and Ilse Esdorn are notable along with their works.


 * ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
 * The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.


 * iii) WP:BEFORE
 * Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C . being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.


 * iv) Alternative of Deletion
 * The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL, it should be kept.


 * v) Good Faith and New Comer
 * Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.


 * Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I made a few changes to the article per sources that I added. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Bernard Heuvelmans and Willy Ley cryptozoologists, so these are pseudoscientific sources. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE apply. Unless you can find some reliable sources, the entire article is based on pseudoscience. Vexations (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am convinced with the sources added to article in question. This is not a scientific term or species, but only a mysterious or legendary creature that could be retained on Wikipedia regardless of pseudoscientific sources as you see. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , We cannot use a science fiction like Philip José Farmer author as a reliable source. Characters in works of fiction can have an article, but the fiction itself is not a reliable source, we need secondary sources. So in this case, we would need a reliable secondary source that discusses Heuvelmans, Ley's and Framer's work. For example, Mr. Darcy is not entirely sourced to Pride and Prejudice, but to scholarly sources that analyze the book. We have nothing like that here. Vexations (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Better to wait for more AfD participants to decide the fate of the article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am little concerned about systemic bias with this set of related nominations of cryptids. We're credulous of every newspaper report of a Loch Ness Monster sighting as a good secondary source, but it looks to me like we're dismissive of other cultures' cryptid reports as pseudoscience. I respect Vexations' research into this and it may be that this cryptid doesn't pass GNG. But I see the difference between this cryptid and the Loch Ness Monster as a difference in degree, not in kind. -- 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge reduced version to List_of_cryptids. The only source that meets WP:N requirements and is WP:V is Ley (1959) Exotic Zoology. This is enough to demonstrate that it has been discussed outside cryptozoology circles (Ley was a postwar general science writer) but not enough to demonstrate GNG coverage for an independent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Willy Ley was a proponent of cryptozoology. I don't think that citing him demonstrate(s) that it has been discussed outside cryptozoology circles. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think our article on Ley really places very WP:UNDUE emphasis on the crypto and pesudoscientific aspects of his writing. The actual source doesn't discuss the creature credulously, just says that this botanist recorded this thing that was spoken of in this place.  Labeling him as a proponent of cryptozoology is also anachronistic since his work predates the field as we know it today but that is an argument for Ley's page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , in what other context than cryptozoology could Ley have discussed the Coje Ya Menia? Not aerospace engineering, certainly? Vexations (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable fictional monster. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: one would expect a creature with a Bantu name to appear in sources about Bantu myth. Nothing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (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.