Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive


 * 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List based off of blog sources like this one that are terrifically unreliable. I don't consider this to be a plausible list name nor a plausible redirect to existing similar topics like Critically Endangered. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A list of species that have possibly survived to modern times would be an interesting list to create. I added only the best references to the animals and found many more out there for each.jbignell (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of what is "believed" or "rumored" is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Either reliable sources assert that certain species exist, or they don't. If they do, add the information to an article relevant to the species. However, a list with tidbits like "Thought to be the Beast of Bray Road" is just not suitable for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure speculation.  Acroterion   (talk)   07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP has articles relating to this subject eg List of megafauna discovered in modern times which has a section on rediscoveries, or List of extinct birds, the former group for those where the discovery is confirmed, the latter allowing for mention of unconfirmed sightings where there are reliable sources. There are articles for things like the Yeti and Loch Ness Monster, and lists such as List of reported lake monsters. So these things are all covered in Wikipedia. This is just a ragbag and if it were thought that yet another list were needed it would need a better title and clearer criteria for inclusion, as explained above. --AJHingston (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * redirect to List of cryptids, which includes all 3 examples and lots more (the list of cryptids includes both non-existent things like yetis and merpeople, and now-extinct things that some consider to survive as relicts). This may be a valid search term for those who don't know the word "cryptid". --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Allow me to have a say so in this as I am the one who started the article! I have found many books as sources that I am citing on that article right now. Here is one of them!


 * Please give this article a chance! This is a great article and it is my first article! C'mon everyone! This I have listed several reliable and credible sources. Book sources. Go to the article right now and you will see them. This article won't dissapoint anyone. Trust me on this! :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One more thing I forgot to add, how do I link the sources? You know, make it to where people can go to the sources that you are referring to? Keeby101 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of cryptids, that cover (better) the same subject. Cavarrone 16:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of cryptids because the very name of this article could almost be the lede at List of cryptids. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course, it's an implausible redirect. My thinking cap must have blown off and tumbled down the street. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I am sorry, but this article of mine is supposed to take these species rumored of being alive to a much more serious level. It is supposed to take a more serious note on these particular species. If we decide to redirect this article to List of cryptids, then I am sorry but no one will take these species that I listed seriously. Besides, List of cryptids has legendary creatures, creatures that have been hoaxes and species that are just improbable such as the Aswang, Emela-ntouka and the Gnome of Gerona which has been proposed by scientists to be a goblin. Goblins do not exist! I could go on for hours why redirecting this article to List of cryptids is absurd, ludicrous and outright redundant. I was about to put the Ivory-Billed and Imperial-Woodpeckers on the article as we speak, but I could not let this redirecting to List of cryptids go unresponded. Little to no one takes cryptids seriously and if you see the list and can clearly see why. If it didn't have mythical creatures and stuff like the flying rods, then it would be taken more seriously. This article of mine is supposed to take these animals possible being alive to a very serious level whereas List of cryptids does not. Keeby101 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey! Why did you all go ahead and do that? I proposed to keep and you crossed it out? Look, I didn't mean to sound rude there, but I was just trying to make a point. The article has been improved btw. I am adding more and more species as we discuss this. Cheers! Also, if what I am doing is classified as spamming then I do not mean to do so ok. Keeby101 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second keep was struck because you already supported keeping the article in your above comment. You can respond to other comments, but avoid repeating putting your decision about keeping, deleting, etc. once you've said so already.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with SL93. I disagree with deleting the article, but I do agree that redirecting the article to List of cryptids is absurd and won't do anything expect get us all back to square one. No one take cryptids seriously! Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists. See what I am aiming for now? Keeby101 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DeleteShould we include the Yeti, Loch ness monster, or even the Dodo which I saw flying above my house the other day?Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of cryptids per above Delete (unlikely search term) as unnecessary WP:Content fork. The list there already has clear markings stating what each "animal" is (or was), and is sortable, so unwanted entries can be sorted out if desired. Ansh666 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, per List of cryptids, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is confirmed still alive. Ansh666 18:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: I would say redirect to List of cryptids, but how many people would search for this title? SL93 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that's not what it is. These animals are all either classified as "extinct" or "critically endangered". You're just creating a wholly unnecessary fork of List of cryptids, List of critically endangered species, and List of extinct animals, and maybe more. Ansh666 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork of List of cryptids. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exaclty! Right now it looks like a fork of all of those articles, but if you are give the article time to grow and blossom you will see that it will a fork of none of them. Believe me on this. It is indeed necessary as there are so many species that yes are classified as extinct and critically endangered, but a lot of those species that are classified under those categories are rumored/believed to still be out there. That is what this article is taking about. Not creatures that have not been discovered yet like cryptids and not extinct or critically endangered species. This is talking about species that could still be out there. A prime example would be the Megaladon as it has gotten mass media attention and many people around the world believe that it is still alive off the coast of Africa. Keeby101 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing you can do will prevent it from being a fork. That simply means that the content is already on Wikipedia, just in other places. There's no need to create yet another article to house all of these. Ansh666 21:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep To add this list under List of Cryptids would take away the science behind the intent of this article. I do think it needs a new title and a focus description of what this list is and the goal of the article. jbignell (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Besides being an obvious POV fork, this is just another "list" article made up of personal blogs, opinions(ie. deadlinks) or no sources at all(ie. Glaucous Macaw). No, this is not how you create an article! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dead links? I have been trying to fix that just FYI and I have been putting in numerous sources for these animals. As I have said before and you can look on my talk page on this or even my user home page and it shows that I am very busy in real life. So if you were to help contribute to the article and cite actual book sources like how I have then it will no longer be look like a fork of other articles. I am not the one who put those blog sources on there. I only put book sources on my article. Other people have been contributing so they could very well be the ones who put up those blog sources. Keeby101 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very interesting and long needed topic. Its cited. And describing rumors that are cited is not taboo on Wikipedia. Seems to work on other articles, why not this one?-- JOJ Hutton  12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No verifiable method of giving reliable references. May be misleading, as we frequently have found species thought to be extinct alive, and have no way of knowing when others become extinct.  Would make the list pure speculation. Caffeyw (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pure rumour mill and of no encyclopedic value. Sources are rubbish. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Rumors cloaked in the trappings of science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things. Recently I have added many more sources. Great books, but unfortunately for this article. Books aren't exactly going to work. I need newspaper sources as well as sources from news websites and/or science news websites to pull this off. Sources like the HistoryChannel.com, ScienceChannel.com, Yahoo Science, Yahoo News, NationalGeographic.com, etc at this point are the only sources that I will be able to truly rely on. Even sources such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN would do far greater than any book. Because the sources that I listed get all of the recent information about these particular species that I have listed in this article. If you don't believe me? Here is one of them: http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/megalodon--is-it-possible-that-this-nearly-67-foot-shark-still-exists-off-the-coast-of-south-africa--213827765.html. Regards Keeby101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (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.