Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 04:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines. Little to no RS coverage, lack of sourcing has been discussed on talk page for years. –dlthewave ☎ 21:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - A Non-notable fringe "living dinosaur", as the previously deleted Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, Ropen, Kasai Rex, Emela-ntouka, etc. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Where are the citations showing this is notable? Where are the citations period? Hey I have a winged creature in my backyard right now with spikes on its toes carrying a tiny flame thrower, better get to writing its Wikipedia page. ;-) Seriously, this should have been a speedy delete. Sgerbic (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable enough with plenty of coverage from 3rd party sources. Surprised that this article remained unsourced in all the years it has been here. I have added sources. One of the first to make any record of it was the biologist Dr. Roy Mackal in 1979 and 81, and his later work in 87 "A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe". His work spearheaded further research and excavation by other scholars over the years. I have added some references to the article. I think this article should be expanded. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, a fringe source and repetitions of that fringe source. --tronvillain (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fringe source"! Dr. Mackal was a well respected biologist and scholar from the University of Chicago. For your info, we don't go by truth here. We go by notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. If we were to go by "truth" we would not have an article on the Loch Ness Monster and several other articles relating to the U.S. and Europe. You can always take it to Jimmy if you want us to go by truth rather than notability and sources. Good luck! Let me sip more of my tasty baobab juice in this beautiful African heat and enjoy the show. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a WP:FRINGE source, as in not a reliable third party source. --tronvillain (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? is notorious pseudoscience, and he is by no means a reliable source on these topics. This is all outlined in, for example, Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science!, including discussion regarding how cryptozoologists frequently defer to Mackal's credentials:
 * "Cryptozoologists have often promoted 'Professor Roy Mackal, PhD.' as one of their leading figures and one of the few with a legitimate doctorate in biology. What is rarely mentioned, however, is that he had no training that would qualify him to undertake competent research on exotic animals. This raises the specter of 'credential mongering', by which an individual or organization faints a person's graduate degree as proof of expertise, even though his or her training is not specifically relevant to the field under consideration." (p. 304-305). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per others, this is indeed non-notable fringe. Mokele-mbembe is by far the most notable subject in these cryptozoologist-Young Earth creationist corners. While Mokele-mbemebe, this entity is far more so. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (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.