Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cryptids


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

List of cryptids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list is an arbitrarily compiled mashup of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH built around principles and vocabulary ("cryptids") internal to a pseudoscience, cryptozoology. Beings from folklore (a topic handled by academics via folkloristics) are plucked seemingly at random by a few Wikipedia users and added to this list as "cryptids", only to be generally described as "unconfirmed". Comically, every now and then something from the fossil record is dropped in and listed as "extinct" for good measure. This list's entire concept is flawed, essentially any being in folklore qualifies as a so-called "cryptid" among cryptozoologists. This article needs to go. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not you believe these things exist or are utter nonsense, there are tons of sources that cover them. --Michig (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about 'belief' regarding any of these beings 'existing'. And that has nothing at all to do with my deletion proposal. This is not a list of beings from folklore. Rather, this is a list of beings plucked from folklore and labeled entirely arbitrarily as "cryptids" via cryptozoology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2016
 * All cryptids are based on sightings and are notplucked from folklore. Cryptozoology is unrelated to mythology and folklore according to it's founder Bernard Heuvelmans.  Please tell me there is a legitimate reason for this tag other than someone's misconceptions on Cryptozoology.The Soldier of Peace (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources on cryptozoology. Anything that doesn't qualify as a cryptid can be removed by editing. I'm not sure I really see a good argument that we shouldn't have a list of cryptids. --Michig (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you're new to this concept and, if so, I wish you'd dig into it a little more before deciding to place a vote here. To be clear, in this particular pseudoscientific approach, any creature from folklore is—and somewhere likely has been—called a "cryptid" by cryptozoologists. As a result, the scope of such a list unlimited. And it's pointless: There's no need for a list when we simply note this on the article space at cryptozoology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not new to this concept, and I still don't see any coherent argument for deletion. There are supposed cryptids that are extremely notable topics irrespective of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and there are a whole host of books that discuss this topic. If you have a problem with unclear inclusion criteria, that's a matter for the article's talk page--Michig (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is based on sightings, not folklore. Also, most cryptids are exclusively based on sightings, with only a minority focused on folklore. Most cryptids are mostly separate from foloklore, so it would be unjust to delete the page on, for the most part, someone's misrepresentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Soldier of Peace (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From dragons to mermaids and bigfoot to the kraken, cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific mash up of folklore and zoology. By far, the majority of sources used by cryptozoologists are indeed plucked from folklore. There's no getting around that, whether or not someone has claimed to have "seen" these beings. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Supposed cryptids"? "Whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience"? Seriously? Not even sure where to begin here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You could start by realising that the fact that something may not be based on 'proper science' and may not exist in nature has zero bearing on its notability. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you didn't look at my user page. I regularly edit articles on folklore—especially mythology—and have for about a decade here on Wikipedia. The creep of cryptozoology on such articles has long been a problem, as has creep from similarly unscientific fields in other areas of Wikipedia. You're evidently missing the point here—or are now too embarrassed to admit your mistake—so I'm going to spell it out again for you: This is a list without a single reliable source that identifies these creatures as "cryptids", is founded on a mess of WP:SYNTH, and pushes an unscientific taxonomy via cryptozoology. It's a WP:FRINGE list if ever there was. This isn't a list of "creatures considered cryptids by cryptozoologists" but rather, via Wikipedia voice, "cryptids"—and therein is the problem. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriosuly, you need to calm down and stop throwing around nonsense like this. No, I didn't look at your user page. Why the hell would I? We're not here to discuss you. Go to Amazon and Google it - there are plenty of sources available. The current state of sourcing in this article has no bearing on the topic's notability. Do you get it yet? --Michig (talk) 11:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like Coleman & Clark (1999) Cryptozoology A-Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature, Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0684856025 or Newton (2004) Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers, McFarland & Co. Inc., ISBN 978-0786420360 would be good places to start if you want solid criteria for inclusion, and books such as these show that the topic has been covered in a way that makes a list like this suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these sources were written by cryptozoologists. Some of them even argue against cryptozoology being a pseudoscience. We need secondary sources—from academics. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need secondary sources from academics for articles on cryptozoology any more than we need secondary sources from academics for articles on scientology or pokemons. We simply need reliable sources that state the facts, published by reputable companies, which we have here. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, damn those academics! Why do they know anyway? Believe it or not, this has indeed been a topic much studied by academics and there are plenty of sources to use on this topic, which is exactly what we're using now for the expansion of cryptozoology. Often, pseudoscientific sources are not exactly trustworthy when it comes to their histories, context, and actions. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your arguments in this AfD are getting more and more bizarre. You argue cryptozoology is not a science then claim that scientific sources need to exist. You say it should be deleted because it doesn't have secondary coverage from academics then you state that this topic has been much studied by academics. You state the article should be deleted because the 'entire concept is flawed' but (below) now support having a "List of notable cryptids", which by convention we would title "List of cryptids", i.e. exactly the title we have now. If the gist of your argument is that it is the quality of this article that is the issue and that it can be fixed by editing and better sourcing, you're simply wasting all of our time with this AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Michig, first of all, I doubt that I need to remind you that nobody forced your hand to participate in this AFD.


 * Cryptozoology is indeed pseudoscience. There's no debate about that. However, academics have studied cryptozoologists and cryptozoology—as a phenomenon. Both biologists and folklorists have commented on and studied the history of cryptozoology and its colorful characters, for example. And, indeed, the concept of the article is flawed, but turning it into a different list would provide some room to potentially solve some of those issues ("List of cryptids" is not the same as "list of notable cryptids" considering that any creature from the folklore record). Work has also continued on the list and on the cryptozoology article itself. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't much like the word cryptid and would prefer fabulous beast but whatever we call them, they certainly pass WP:LISTN. For example, see Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters Sasquatch Chupacabras And Other Authentic Myteries of Nature. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The word cryptid is not a synonym for fabulous beast nor creature from folklore. Rather, it's a specific term used by cryptozoologists. The book you've cited doesn't help the case of the list—there is no question that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that essentially any creature from folklore can be considered a "cryptid" by cryptozoologists. Further, the list violates any number of Wikipedia policies, from WP:OR to WP:SYNTH. It doesn't even bother to cite cryptozoologists describing these beings as "cryptids" but rather finds a bunch of random creatures from folklore and lists them as "cryptids". That's a serious problem. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article cryptozoology provides a quote by Henry Gee, editor of Nature, "Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold." So, cryptids are considered to be fabulous creatures.  Q.E.D.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You went to the cryptozoology article, ignored everything else there, and came back with that? Crypted is a specialized term' used in a "field" of pseudoscience. What's with these drive-by editors who decide to vote on AFD postings without researching the topic—then dig in to defend themselves when called out rather than admitting that they're wrong? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm serious. No, I didn't ignore everything else.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep Bloodofox is right, the article is an artificial synthesis of a fringe taxonomy written from the point of view of a pseudoscience - in Wikipedia's voice. Consensus around sourcing requirements for fringe topics has evolved since this article was first created back in 2006. Today we wouldn't allow editors to create a "List of faith healing cures" and categorize items on that list by "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" just because a number of the cures on the list could be sourced to faith healing literature. This list of "cryptids" is essentially of the same ilk and needs to go all the WP:OR determinations of "status", WP:SYNTH "categories" and non-WP:FRIND sourcing issues addressed by heavy editing to bring it into line with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We do actually have pages like list of esoteric healing articles and category:supernatural healing which list the various articles of that sort. The page in question is just a navigational aid to finding pages about creatures such as the Loch Ness monster and bunyip.  There don't seem to be any problems here which can't be fixed by ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see those list pages do not contain an artificially synthesized taxonomy categorizing items from the fringe point of view. In the very least, List of cryptids should be similarly brought back into line with NPOV and FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed but I don't see any editing helping this list. The only way it would refrain from violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is by changing it to a list of beings that cryptozoologists have referred to as "cryptids", which is any creature from folklore (and all of this would have to be fully referenced to specific cryptozoologists no less). This can (or is) handled on the cryptozoology article in a single sentence. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as I can see, this has a clear inclussion criteria and contains notable entries, with plenty of sources. I think an RfC on the talkpage would be a better idea, rather than this AfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at sources before you comment on how "plentiful" they are. This article is extremely poorly sourced—it's nothing more than WP:SYNTH. Dead links, another Wikipedia article used as a reference, and no mention of "cryptids" (a term internal to cryptozoology). It couldn't be any worse. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a precedent for articles of this sort that somewhat mirror a category (in this case, Category:Cryptids). In other words, if an article can be included in that category, it can be included in this list, along with some snippet of information. List entries without their own article (the usual source of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues in lists) can be addressed on the article talk page. AFD is not cleanup and I'm not convinced this article's problems are insurmountable. clpo13(talk) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you considered what is *in* that category? Those entries absolutely need to be removed from those categories—like I've said before every creature in folklore can is called a "cryptid" in cryptozoology. And, of course, we don't promote pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. According to Wikipedia (and everyone outside of the world of cryptozoology), there's no such thing as a "cryptid". That category needs to be deleted more than this list does. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Reporting on pseudoscience is not the same as promoting it, and the pseudoscience here is notable enough to be reported on. clpo13(talk) 05:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic with plenty of sources covering it. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind to "keep" but I don't agree to "keep with no changes". After this AfD closes, some substantial edits will need to happen to strip out the WP:OR and bring the article in line with other list articles, making it clear that items in the list reflect the distinct minority view of cryptozoologists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep though needs work - it's messy, but this is an encyclopedic topic and a useful sort of article to have. So who here is going to help clean it up? (cough) - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: this list ostensibly covers a coherent set of notable topics, and seems useful (ie adds value over just having the category alone). The fact that it covers topics in pseudoscience is not a good reason to delete it. However, I certainly agree that it could use mucho improvement, especially when it comes to the inclusion criteria: it should be restricted to things that are notable as cryptids, not just notable things that have been referred to as cryptids once by someone at some point. This can certainly include real taxa or folkloric beings, as long as they have achieved notability (usually notoriety) in their association with cryptozoology (eg the Eastern cougar, which was obviously real and studied by real scientists, but has received so much cryptozoological attention that this makes up a significant part of its main article). Those interested in helping may want to take a look at the list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments: it's also all about pseudoscience, but pretty dang concise and informative, and that format seems much better suited for this kind of material. -- bornLoser (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be on board for turning the list into something like "List of notable cryptids". Right now, the article violates about every element of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and has a limitless scope, inviting random users to throw up something they've found somewhere on the internet and judge whether or not it's been "confirmed". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While the list could use better sourcing, the topic is notable and there is plenty of material to use. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this user has been Wikistalking me and recently stated that folkloristics is a pseudoscience. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2016 (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.