Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingonek


 * 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 no consensus and it doesn't look like another relist would change this. Michig (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dingonek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only source is a secondhand memoir from 1910. A search failed to return any reliable sources to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep See other references here 1 2 3. Again, yes, it's a Cryptid and almost certainly does not exist, but that's not the important point - the important point is what RSs say. FOARP (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are useable:
 * "Bigfoot is Missing!" is a children's picture/poetry book
 * "Uncle John's Weird Weird World: Who, What, Where, When, and Wow!" is a trivia compilation published by the Bathroom Readers' Institute
 * "On The Track Of Unknown Animals" is written by notoriously unreliable pseudoscientist Bernard Heuvelmans
 * A Wikipedia article must be based on high-quality sources, not pseudoscientists and those who parrot them. –dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same point as has been made repeatedly here and elsewhere: yes, we know that Cryptids don't exist. Yes, people who study cryptids are pseudoscientists. This does not mean that Cryptids do not receive significant coverage in reliable sources for what is a cryptid. Continually repeating "but this is pseudoscience" is deeply unhelpful. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP. I think this is a good case where cleanup is more warranted than deletion. Ryan shell (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see other sources apart from those given by FOARP, so it should pass WP:GNG even if the creature likely doesn't exist. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you evaluated the reliability of these sources? Two are period (1913 and 1917) pieces which repeat Jordan's story. Two are cryptid compendiums written by fringe theorists Shuker and Coleman. They might be useful as primary-souprce suporting material, but they aren't high-quality academic sources that one could use to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1913 one from East African Geographical Review gives more than one account, and the Eberhart book appears to be from a reputable publisher. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * George Eberhart is a cryptozoologist and not an independent source for fringe topics (WP:FRIND). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of those are clearly fringe sources, but the other two don't establish notability even if you use the WP:GNG rather than the applicable WP:NFRINGE - the mention in the Journal of The East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society is not significant coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion on the reliability of the sources is needed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment We've been over this again and again. Yes, we know that cryptids don't exist. Yes, we know that the people who study cryptids are pseudoscientists. This doesn't make them not reliable sources for what things are considered to be cryptids, any more than any of the articles related to fictional or legendary subject matter. This AFD proposal is part of a much bigger campaign to rid Wiki of articles related to cryptids. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they're not reliable sources.
 * Cryptozoologists are not independent sources, and are widely known for making all sorts of nonsense claims both about themselves and their subculture. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would prefer to read that opinion offline, and who defined the boundaries of the field. I wont be so crass as to point out where cryptids were reported by 'unreliable sources' [as per 19C views] and the creature was later 'discovered' by science. cygnis insignis 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want sources discussing the unreliability of cryptozoologists, there are numerous sources on this topic here. You can also find Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science—where they discuss this topic in depth—pretty readily. Biologists find new species all the time, cryptozoologists have never found a single monster (or "cryptid", as they call them). Cryptozoology didn't exist until the late 1950s, the the subculture didn't coin the term "cryptid" until the mid-1980s. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm familiar with the topic, it is interesting from many aspects. I'll read what I can find from the article, though it is not the first place I would look to bring myself up to speed on the topic. The certainty of your position causes me doubt, a reflex I'm afraid, I'm steeped in the philosophy of science. My crass point was this: local peoples knew what was in their environment, those organisms were cryptids until they were shot and boxed. The other end of the field is something like the beliefs of pastafarians, another cryptid if someone wanted to dilute any meaning in the term. cygnis insignis 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From your response, it appears to me that you're conflating general folk belief with cryptozoology. The former is common among all people, the latter is an aggressively anti-academic subculture associated with, for example, Young Earth creationism. People have beliefs about all sorts of critters or monsters stemming from folklore. That's universal and doesn't fall into the realm of pseudoscience. The term "cryptid" was coined to cryptozoologists to make their subculture seem more 'scientific' to the general public by avoiding the word the rest of us use: monster. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Cannot find reliable sources for this beyond what's already there. Everything else seems to come from fringe sources (cryptozoology). If anyone can dig up anything on this from a folklorist, biologist, or whatever, we can get an article out of this. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * East African Geographical Review is not a fringe source. Hzh (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That source is from 1913. Although it may have been mainstream at the time, its credulous treatment of sightings is now firmly in fringe territory. Promoters of pseudoscience often cite theories that were once prominent mainstream scholarship but are no longer widely accepted. –dlthewave ☎ 13:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea on what basis you base your argument on. Topics in pseudoscience or on things that are not accepted to be true are valid entries as any other topics. Are you proposing to delete phrenology, Bigfoot, Creation science and others?  There seems to be a misuse of WP:FRIND which is not about notability criteria for an article, but a wider discussion on presenting sources on fringe theories (see for example in WP:PARITY where the views of the fringe theory adherents should be simply dismissed). For what's it worth, there are a lot more sources, e.g. . Hzh (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science are all supported by mainstream scientific sources. None of the provided sources present a mainstream view of the Dingonek; how would one write an acceptable NPOV article using only credulous century-old reports and modern fringe pieces? –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , attribution. "Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science are all supported by mainstream scientific sources." I am reading this correctly? cygnis insignis 17:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that our Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science articles are supported by mainstream sources. These sources discuss the pseudoscience from a mainstream perspective but do not support the fringe theory itself. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We use independent, reliable (e.g. academic or solid journalist) sources for fringe articles. And for good reason: Fringe sources are not reliable, neither for their claims nor for describing themselves. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be dismissing the academic sources I gave for no reason apart from disliking them. Simply because you don't like them is not an argument. Hzh (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Academic sources? Which sources are you referring to? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We've given valid reasons for each source; I don't see any WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. Part of the problem is that outdated sources such as East African Geographical Review are being presented as academic. Science has advanced over the past century and our articles should reflect that advancement by using current reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What valid reasons? I see someone who claims not to see academic sources when there are (journals are academic sources), and you who arbitrarily reject the sources as unacceptable. It is not about whether they exists or not or if the claims are true, but whether the accounts of the creature exist in RS. You are mistaking the notability of article with the subject being true or false. Science has moved on from the idea of phlogiston, but that remains a historically significant subject.  Hzh (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our phlogiston article uses modern sources to describe the history of the theory from a current scientific perspective, and they're not written by phlogiston-promoters. The same cannot be said for the Dingonek, which seems to be largely ignored by current reliable sources and thus does not meet our notability requirements. Historical texts may have a use as primary-source documents for an early understanding of the topic but they would need to be supported by secondary sources to provide the necessary context. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at the article as it stands now, there is one WP:PRIMARY source. There appears to be no WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. There appears to be no WP:NRV outside of the crypto-zoology field. Therefore, in my opinion it does not meet WP:NOTEability. I also reject the Slippery slope fallacy being employed on this page - if the Dingonek is removed today then tomorrow it could be the removal of the Loch Ness monster. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that you should not decide on the notability of article based on what is in the article, but what you can find in a search. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I've opened a discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of these sources. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  weak keep Not happy with the lack of sources, but a source being from 1913 is not a valid objection, this "Amérique, Sibérie, Afrique" by Bernard Heuvelmans may also have a reference to it. As may [], as may []. That is enough for me to think keep.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heuvelmans, is of course, a founding figure of cryptozoology, and notoriously unreliable. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He also had a phd in zoology, thus making him a qualified zoologist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Slater, you really need a copy of that Loxton and Prothero book, and I highly recommend that you spend some time with those references over at cryptozoology. Heuvelmans is indisputably a fringe figure who pushed deeply out-there stuff throughout his life, and often expressed hostility toward academia. Heuvelmans happens to also have no background in folklore studies—this entity, the Dingonek, like just about everything else cryptozoologists pursue, is an entity from the folklore record. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then should not be what the article is about (and sourced to) all those folklore studies? This is not an argument for deletion (it is not a cryptid, its a creature from folklore) but rather a re-write.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is lack of sources to establish notability and a lack of reliable sources to work with. If we can find some kind of monograph discussing the creature, then that can easily be accomplished (happens all the time), but that might not exist for this entity. It could be an obscure name for something else, for example, and potentially even invented as some kind of hoax. These situations are often a lot more complex than they initially seem, and so far I've turned up nothing with which to rebuild the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, I assume you have read RS that describe this as a creature from folk lore, so why not use those?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The few mentions we have of a few people talking about some creature called a dingonek = folklore. However, we only have a couple people talking about the creature in the early 20th century, and it may well have started out as a hoax (perhaps from Edgar Beecher Bronson or his informants or whatever) and thereafter took a life of its own (thus entering the folklore record), similar to the Partridge Creek monster. However, we don't have enough sources to say anything more than "some big game hunter said he saw some wild creature called the Dingonek in Kenya" at the moment. It's possible that some folklorist or linguist could have encountered this and said something about the name or whatever, but we currently lack any such source. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not even look at the sources I provided, which gave different accounts from different people. Apparently the Masai gave the creature the name Ol-umaina. Hzh (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the 1912 W. M. Congreve source? From this we can add 'some years later, W. M. Congreve says he called local officials and they said they call the creature the "Ol-umaina", while describing it in a notably different manner'. Sounds like Mokele-mbembe all over again, where an independent modern source is absolutely necessary to parse what's happening here without WP:OR. Seems there's likely some more dinosaurs-in-Africa influence going on, including some potential chain-pulling from locals, as Loxton and Prothero discuss in Abominable Science. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing whether it is real or not (I'm inclined to think it is not), but whether it is notable enough for inclusion. The believe of yours (or mine for that matter) on its existence is irrelevant here. You are misunderstanding OR, so please don't bring that into the discussion. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring Heuvelman's as clearly fringe, the second source there is just the Journal of The East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society article again (which is trivial mention, not extensive coverage), and hilariously the Alone in the Sleeping-sickness Country is repeating the wrong piece of that article (an earlier paragraph about Clement Hill) as "dingonek." --tronvillain (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as the dearth of reliable sources fails to meet general notability guidelines. A single source from the early 1900s does not imply anything even like WP:SUSTAINED interest in this apocryphal animal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already given three separate sources. Hzh (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of them are reliable — two 'I saw a dinosaur in Africa!/He saw a dinosaur in Africa!' sources from the early 20th century, and the usual discussion among modern pseudoscience proponents do not reliable sources make (from the 1912 reference: "a survival of some extinct race of saurians is a thing to thrill the imagination of the scientific world", classic colonial living dinosaur stuff—academia has moved far, far beyond this). See, for example, Loxton and Prothero on the notorious Mokele-mbembe. There's a solid case for why we require modern reliable sources for this stuff. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply claiming that they are unreliable does not make it so, especially when you don't know that journals are academic sources. Whether they are real or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability, which is what we are discussing. Hzh (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me: I'm not concerned about whether or not the entity in question is real (I often write about entities on the site that certainly aren't real in this sense), I'm concerned about the sources you've provided. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand you perfectly well. You are arguing that old journals (academic sources) are unreliable because the subject is not discussed in more recent academic sources, which is ridiculous given that recent academic sources are unlikely to discuss it because they are likely not "real". So you are in fact arguing about the "realness" of the subject. You have essentially misunderstood what the sources are meant for - they are not there to show that it exists, but that it was discussed, therefore showing its notability. The argument that the journals are unreliable simply because the subject may not be real is a false one. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that two early 20th century sources—primary sources, no less—don't establish notability. Folklorists and biologists talk about this sort of thing a fair amount, we simply lack any modern sources discussing the topic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * More recent academics aren't likely to discuss it because there is no new information (although you can find many passing mentions), and you have already dismissed any modern sources that discussed it as work of cryptozoologists (therefore what they say don't count as far as you are concerned), thus the subject cannot be notable because any discussion involving it are not valid. This argument just goes round in circles. Hzh (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern academics—such as Donald Prothero—have produce lengthy works focused on related topics, such as Mokele-mbembe. I've mentioned this a few times now. Additionally, cryptozoologists are simply not reliable sources. If you can find sources that establish notability, this discussion evaporates. Otherwise this just doesn't seem to meet the project's notability guidelines. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Age alone is not a problem or an indicator of unreliability, as bloodofox is well aware - extensive coverage in old sources could easily establish something as notable even if it's no longer being discussed today (notability doesn't expire). The problem is that for a fringe topic like this, there's nothing like the extensive coverage that would establish notability. The journal article could justifiably be used in an article for a notable subject, but does not itself establish notability. --tronvillain (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a clear delete. There appears to be essentially nothing (as discussed above) to establish notability. From WP:NFRINGE, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers", and cryptozoology proponents like Coleman, Shuker, or Heuvelmans are in no sense independent for the purposes of establishing notability. They are definitely fringe. Which leaves us with the primary source and a couple of "news of the weird" offhand repetitions of that primary source. --tronvillain (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hzh. It is irrelevant whether one believes it exists or not. What is relevant is that the subject has been reported in reliable independent sources. We do not go  by truth here. We go by what reliable sources say. Also, considering the age of reporting and the fact that Kenya is a developing country, I doubt one will find newer/more online reporting without reference to the old reporting. Considering the age, one is perhaps more likely to find them in old books/publications. The fact that one is able to find some online sources is just fortunate and indeed, adds to the notability of the subject. Besides, it is part of the country's folklore  just as the Loch Ness Monster is to Scotland. There is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster as most grown and intelligent adults  know or should know, yet we have an article on that. It is irrelevant how old the sources are. It was notable enough to be reported and re-reported. There is no time limit to notability. The very fact that there are sources on the subject establishes notability and passes WP:GNG. Tamsier (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which reliable, independent sources have reported on the Dingonek? Which source describes it as "part of the country's folklore"? –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no one is arguing that this shouldn't be an article because it doesn't exist. I have specifically argued for keeping relatively obscure folklore in this past, but in this case the sources don't actually support it. There's essentially a single primary source, a few contemporary repetitions of that source, and then a variety of later cryptozoologists also repeating the same source. For a fringe topic, that's absolutely not enough to meet notability. --tronvillain (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Ultimately, we have several sources going back 100 years. From the nontrivial stuff already mentioned published by the East Africa Natural History Society in 1913 to this 1918 article in Maclean's to the many entries in encyclopedias of mythological creatures and/or cryptozoology like Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (published by ABC-CLIO) and then the lesser albeit nontrivial coverage in places like On the Track of Unknown Animals (published by Routledge). Weak Keep because I'd still like to see more, of course, but these seems enough here to pass GNG.
 * As elsewhere, the delete !votes seem to rely on the idea that all sources connected to cryptozoology or cryptozoologists must be discounted. Given the multiple old sources, it's not even clear that it wouldn't be notable if we discounted the more recent sources (would require more digging, as a lot of the material would doubtless not be online). But to be clear, my position isn't based on the "if" of offline sources. As elsewhere, I reject the idea that folklore is the sole domain of folkloristics. Here we have a folklore subject that's been covered for a hundred years, with full articles/entries dedicated to it in several sources. That's notability. This isn't a biology article. There's no need to frame these as scientific claims (we don't need to include the pretense of scientific documentation that Eberhart seems fond of in order to say "this is what people have said about this mythological/legendary/whatever creature"). Does that mean we should include cryptozoo, cryptozoologist blogs, or some content farm's listicle? No. But an encyclopedia published by Routledge or ABC-CLIO is not the same. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear for readers, we have exactly two sources that in some way meet WP:RS, and they're both from the early 20th century and both primary sources. The rest, fringe sources that echo the above while excitedly going through the usual living dinosaur motions, must comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND, including Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures (like cryptozoologist Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?—published by E.J. Brill (!)—it's an example of a fringe piece that made it through the editorial process of an otherwise reputable publisher—it happens).


 * As for "I reject the idea that folklore is the sole domain of folkloristics", that's a bizarre statement and does seem to imply some kind of anti-academic sentiment. However, you are of course aware that we also frequently employ reliable sources from biologists and science writers when we discuss the subculture of cryptozoology, especially works by Donald Prothero.


 * This appears to be yet another editor-aimed attack vote in defense of the subculture's 'treatment' on the platform. If you want to discuss getting WP:FRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE changed in a manner in which we can open the gates to Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Barn at Geocities or whatever, this isn't the venue for it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * another attack vote ... Just not even bothering with the pretense of approaching this topic without a battlefield/povfighter mentality anymore? As before, WP:FRINGE, etc. is just fine the way it is, thanks. The issue is your application of it. Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Barn at Geocities ... a reductio ad absurdum that directly contradicts what I actually said. I've made no secret that I find bloodofox an extraordinarily toxic, relentlessly tendentious editor, as much as he does good work on some other topics. As such I won't be engaging with this response further here. I see that while I was responding bloodofox edited his response to include that diff that he keeps linking to as thought to invalidate anything I say. Again, misplaced WP:POVFIGHTER nonsense (see here for an elaboration -- it doesn't belong here). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As you're aware, "no personal attacks" is core site policy ("extraordinarily toxic", etc.). I get that you've got an axe to grind and that always you're keen to appear out of the woodwork whenever you think it's time to place a vote or make a revert in favor of the subculture (complete with insults aimed at yours truly) before vanishing to do so next time the opportunity arises, but, readers, this diff really does say it all. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm violating NPA, there are other venues for that. It's not a personal attack, of course, but a claim you're backing up in real time, linking to the same diff you just linked to, doing nothing other than the usual bad faith/conspiracy ravings and pouring more poison into the well... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I thought you had declared you weren't engaging with this response further here? To be frank, I think your time is best spent in these situations finding WP:RS-complaint sources rather than stretching yourself in every possible position to get fringe sources on to these articles. Find reliable sources, and discussions like these evaporate. It's the same old song and dance for fringe topics. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 6 January 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.