Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhinoceros dolphin


 * 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   merge to List of cryptids.  Sandstein  05:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhinoceros dolphin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source" [sic], presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination completed for above user. lifebaka++ 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No proper sources. No evidence of notability. No dolphin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

*Delete. Hardly any content and only one feeble reference. There is nothing wrong with having articles about fictitious creatures as long as it is made clear that they are fictitious and they are backed up with some worthwhile references. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was all set to !vote delete here, but then I took a look at Google Books and to my surprise there seem to be several mentions of this beastie in what seem to be legitimate books about cryptozoology.  Could other interested editors here please take a look at these and see what they think?: (especially pp. 458-459),,  --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that 'legitimate books about cryptozoology' would avoid such ridiculous practices as assigning a species name to an animal that has yet to be verified, and adding photoshopped images that don't even match the description in the only (dubious) source given, which is the problem here. As always, there is nothing to prevent edits to an article during AfD, so if the sources you provide are acceptable, and they actually provide evidence that this new species might exist, I'd be prepared to reconsider my delete !vote. I suggest you edit the article, and cite the sources for what they actually say - provided you are satisfied they meet WP:RS for what you wish to claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stumbled into the same links, and became equally hesitant. What they do prove is that this isn't just some random thing an editor made up. That being said, they're pretty weak in terms of coverage. We wouldn't consider a character in a fiction book who gets that much coverage to be notable, and the same should probably stand for an entry in a fake encyclopedia. And it looks like someone didn't put too much effort into changing the image--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is laughable, but as far as sourcing goes there seems to be a good number of sources that mention and discuss this creature. Given the above sources, if they can be added to the article, then I'm a for sure keep!vote - and I dont see why they cant be incorperated. This is an article waiting to be made on a notable enough topic. Outback the koala (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to List of cryptids. I looked at the sources on this.
 * "Mysterious creatures: a guide to cryptozoology, Volume 1" - significant mentions in a credible (and apparently non-self-pub, 2002) book.
 * "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History: zoology, botany, and geology" (published 1857). Significant mention and given age of book, shows good evidence the concept has had 150 years of "enduring notice".
 * "Fictional Toothed Whales" and "Sea Cryptids". Appear to be the same/similar book by the title/length, and self-published (by the publishee). Not inclined to give these any real weight.
 * While coverage is slim, it does seem to be genuine, and the concept, hoax, notion of a cryptid, or whatever this may be appears to have been noticed in reliable sources to a level that shows it has gained wider attention. We may not be able to say much on it though, so redirect and merge to list of cryptids. FT2 (Talk 11:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the second sources that you correctly labeled unreliable are simply pages copied from Wikipedia, so I'd be careful not to use them as sources when a merge is performed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those last two "sources" are verbatim copies of Wikipedia content. See Books LLC. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to List of cryptids. FT2's analysis convinces me. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge to List of Cryptids. FT2 has a fair argument.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge what can be sourced, delete the rest.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to the extent that it's sourced. FT2 has persuaded me that this is part of a broader notable phenomenon. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge as per above. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2011 (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.