Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kongamato


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Kongamato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG; a Before search returned primarily fringe/cryptozoological sources that cannot be used to establish WP:SIGCOV or write a balanced article. There is no reliable sourcing for this being a potential unidentified species (even Melland's account from In Witch-bound Africa is skeptical) nor a figure from indigenous mythology. –dlthewave ☎ 13:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more week to examine sources recently brought forward.
 * Delete, for lack of reliable coverage in secondary sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, In witch-bound Africa primary source, journals Bantu Studies, African Affairs, Journal of the Royal African Society in search results but 1925-1944 and can't find the full content available anywhere. Lots of search results, a few mentions in reliable sources, but nothing so far that could be used for an article.&mdash;eric 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * above reprints
 * is available but probably coyvio. results for African Affairs are a reprint, barely significant coverage
 * is available but probably coyvio. results for African Affairs are a reprint, barely significant coverage

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is enough for a few sentences of content somewhere and a redirect, but i can't find any good merge targets. If someone can find one then merge (but please not to list of cryptids.)&mdash;eric 20:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The current sources are suboptimal and it's challenging to find better ones, indicating a lack of notability. — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 19:57, 4 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.