Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguma-monene


 * 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  08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nguma-monene

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A Non-notable fringe "living dinosaur", as the previously deleted Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, Ropen, Kasai Rex, Emela-ntouka, and so on. There is essentially no coverage in reliable sources. tronvillain (talk) 13:51, 6 July
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. No high quality sources found.  It's not notable, it's not verifiable.  Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Somewhat to my surprise, this 1987 book published by Brill Publishers has an entire chapter on this ... alleged creature: . 24.151.50.175 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) I've restored some deleted material drawing from this source and another source published by Penguin for discussion purposes. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, A Living Dinosaur? is the fringe source that originated the story. --tronvillain (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you expound upon why these books published by respected publishers are fringe and do not go to establishing notability of a possible (or mythological) creature? (not disagreeing, just asking for information why this isn't a Loch Ness Monster situation). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure! It's a fringe theory because it departs significantly from the prevailing views in zoology, archeology, and any other relevant field you care to name. And as seen at WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Mackall is the main promulgator/popularize of this fringe theory. This contrasts with subjects like Mokele-mbembe (the primary subject of A Living Dinosaur?) or the Loch Ness monster, which actually have received such coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cogent response. Color me convinced. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as receiving no substantial coverage in reliable sources beyond promoters of fringe theory. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notable coverage in reliable sources that I can see. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is an already low bar, but since no one has shown it exists yet, that seems to be a pretty clear indication that it fails even that notability metric. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to its more famous "cousin", the Mokele-mbembe. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - there doesn't seem to be any scientific papers talking about this "organism", nor any actually reliable sources. Thus, it should be deleted, as it does not seem to exist. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete on account of lack of notability. Wikipedia, the last place one can still find living dinosaurs. Exterminate before it breeds. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.