Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Great Spider

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was recreated by Marino73 using bits of the article deleted via Articles for deletion/Jba fofi. As a counter-argument against deletion under the WP:G4 deletion criterion, it could be argued that this new article adds fresh and new content and references. In my opinion, that is not evidenced here. The "find sources" template that will be added to this AfD will indicate that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Great Spider" (Technically this is WP:COPYWITHIN copyright violation. That can be dealt with.) Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The original version was cited has having two core problems: 1) It was titled "Jba Fofi", but only had once reference to the Congo spider with that name but had sightings of giant spiders elsewhere. It's a valid criticism (it was my first real attempt at a Wikipedia article) 2) The references were cryptozoological websites, and these were called into question The "Great Spider" article was done to cover the overall - albeit limited - phenomena of giant spider sightings worldwide. And while Jba Fofi is mentioned in the article, it is only in the context of the Congo sighting. In addition, I used book references such as the one by Nick Redfern as opposed to cryptozoological websites, under the belief that these might be considered more valid in at least some cases. Delete it if you must, but it is somewhat confusing as to the standards of what should be deleted when it comes to such supposed animals. The Great Spider with multiple sightings is nominated for deletion, yet a Steller's Sea Ape remains on Wikipedia despite only having two accounts. The Sucuriju gigante (giant anaconda) remains, but it is a stub article with no sightings. I don't want to waste time with this - just trying to understand why one cryptid animal exists with a paucity of evidence and another is nominated for deletion. Thanks. Marino73 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see the original deleted version, but I probably would have tried WP:G4 anyways. The arguments from the old AfD are still valid, and this AfD is a colossal waste of time because of this spurious recreation. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is too much original research and unsourced claims here. The article is not specific, it is mish mash of ideas thrown together with no apparent criteria. Most of this reads as ficition, we already have a category for movies about spiders. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Glad to see this stuff spotted. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Each of the accounts is referenced in Redfern's book. I also added William Gibbons book reference - someone deleted it - back to deal with the Reginald Lloyd sighting. The sighting is also mentioned in the Season 2 "Giant Spiders" episode of Monsterquest. The original History Channel URL to the episode was no longer valid. I've added the current URL where that episode can be found on The History Channel's website. Marino73 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all fringe proponents. Gibbons is perhaps the best known Young Earth creationist cryptozoologist to date (Loxton and Prothero talk about this) and academics have noted the role that Monsterquest (and thus "History") have played in uncritically disseminating fringe theories cooked up in cryptozoology circles (cf. Cryptozoology). In short, it's all WP:PROFRINGE/all WP:RS fails. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox, thanks. I would counter by saying that the fact that Gibbons is a creationist is immaterial to this article. While his book is about his travel to the Congo to find a living dinosaur in support of Young Earth creationism, his reference to the Jba Fofi is basically separate. While looking for the Mokele-mbembe he writes in his book that he was familiar with the Lloyd story and asked natives about it. Whether or not he is a creationist or evolutionist misses the point - he was in the Congo and discussed accounts of giant spider sightings. As for Redfern, he's just reporting the purported sightings. The Monsterquest episode proposes the existence of giant spiders in sensational fashion, but they did not originate the Lloyd story of the Zimbabwe encounter, nor did Gibbons. It predates both of them. Gibbons doesn't say that he encountered them, only that the natives had.

To my original question - what qualifies for allowing a cryptid article to remain? Since there is no real evidence apart from sightings, why have any articles at all? Why should the Lusca not be subject for deletion? Or Bessie, the Gigantic octopus, or the Mongolian death worm? All of them have a paucity of accounts, and their existence is proposed by fringe circles. This article does not propose that these creatures exist, only that they are alleged to and also provides scientific reasoning as to why they can't. Again, thanks to you and Psychologist guy. If you have to delete, then delete. Marino73 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to have a could of OKish sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Redfern and Gibbons are fringe and unreliable. What's left over is a couple of marginal sources stating giant spiders don't exist.&mdash;eric 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/G4 - Recreation of the poorly-sourced "sightings" list from recently-deleted Jba fofi article. Refs, including Redfern, are fringe. –dlthewave ☎ 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fringe sources, basically an attempt to recreate the recently deleted Jba fofi article. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Article could use more work, but seems balanced. WP:TNT has already been applied.-- Auric   talk  21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/G4/spray with barrel of Raid - as nom points out, there is no primary topic for "Great Spider", which is just a translation of Jba Fofi anyway. Even though there have been cuts, what remains is just a mishmash of a WP:PROFRINGE lead, a non-notable or noteworthy Facebook hoax, and a short piece about how giant spiders cannot exist (thank god). No encyclopedic topic there. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As the accounts have been removed - including Gibbons and Redfern - I have added a few website references from Geek.com,medium.com,and a non-believing reference in a Washington Post article for a woman in search of a supposed large spider in Maine who first stops by a cryptozoological museum and sees references to the Congolese Giant Spider. I also added a few additional references in the Arguments Against section. Regarding why Great Spider, as mentioned previously that I wanted to create a page to deal with the overall Giant Spider sightings "phenomena" of which J'ba Fofi is only a part. The previous article had been rewritten to de-emphasize the Congo spider and to source only books for the accounts section. Marino73 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you've added, most of which are quite low quality and don't mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific subculture, back the claim you've attached them to. No reliable source is making the claim that there might be gigantic spiders running around somewhere. Please don't make it seem as if they do. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no "Giant Spider sightings" since there are no giant spiders, for well understood reasons. All that Wikipedia does by having an article is to strengthen nonsensical beliefs. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 9 January 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.