Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ngoubou


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ngoubou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is clearly non-notable (there's no exemption for fringe labels like "cryptids") and profringe, with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. While there was nothing on the talk page about a previous nomination, the page history shows that it was part of a deletion discussion for Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu which closed with a result of no consensus. A redirect to List of cryptids is unsupported, since that's a list of mystery animals notable enough to have a page, and provides no information to someone looking for "Ngoubou." Possibly a redirect to Mokele-mbembe, since even within unreliable fringe sources that's the context it usually comes up in, but a delete would be cleaner. --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question. Would a redirect to Ceratopsia be a possibility here? I am a little hesitant about suggesting this, as this is clearly a case of a "cryptid" species. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking further, it seems to be a recent (c. 2000) creationist idea, speculated by them to be similar to the also fringe Emela-ntouka in Roy Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe, and then further speculated to be similar to a (not especially similar) report in Heuvelman's On the Track of Unknown Animals: "24 ft. in length with a long pointed snout adorned with tusks like horns and a short horn above the nostrils. The front feet were like those of a horse and the hind hoofs were cloven. There was a scaly hump on the monster's shoulders." It's multiple levels of non-notable fringe, but maybe a redirect to Ceratopsia would work? --tronvillain (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is one of a score of articles that somehow made it out of the deep fringe swamp on to the site without demonstrating any level of significant notability, often with the goal of promoting fringe. The link between cryptozoology and Young Earth creationism in these areas is strong. While that in itself is an interesting topic to write about, but without secondary discussion, articles like these fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without sound references, this could be a complete hoax - nevermind failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 00:08, 14 June 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.