Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Track of Unknown Animals


 * 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   Keep. Non-admin closure. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On the Track of Unknown Animals

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BK. No notable reviews, no indication that the book is somehow famous or important. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Teneous Keep. WP:BK criteria 5 and possibly 3. This the book on cryptozoology by the guy who invented it - Bernard Heuvelmans. Wikipedia says "he best and most influential cryptozoological works." (okay bad source) But others say "the seminal book on cryptozoology" SciFi Channel, " the most important book in the field" - a geocities website. According to another website it is one of two works by Heuvelmans available in English, which may explain absence of English coverage. I agree my argument is not entirely convincing, but I think it still enough to justify keeping. This is appears a pretty important text in cryptozoology circles. --ZayZayEM (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As ZayZayEM points out, this is the book that established a whole discipline of cryptozoology. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Probably the most important publication in cryptozoology. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - book is pretty clearly famous and important. Wily D 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per earlier comments. I recommend this nomination be withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominations really shouldn't be withdrawn. This was a good faith nomination. The article could certainly do with more details establishing its topic's notability, and additionally notable secondary does appear scant. Keeping an AFD on record may help in avoiding a repeated nomination. Although, WP:SNOW may come into effect to close discussion early, possibly.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With an obvious nod to WP:AGF, this was an AfD by an editor who has an agenda (just read their user page), yet clearly hasn't done the scantiest of research beforehand. I wonder how many other babies they've sent down the plughole in the same way? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It has sold a million copies and was in print for 40 years. If Heuvelmans is worth keeping, his most famous book is.Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2008 (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.