Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waheela


 * 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. The non-notability arguments stated by the delete camp are stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Waheela

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Before search returned primarily fringe cryptozoological works; there is not enough RS coverage to establish notability or write a NPOV article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sigh, are we really going to back through the same super-soaker fight we had in 2018 over Cryptids? In this case, I see a CBC article that just gets over the line for Sigcov (three short paras), and a description of them in this book published by Penguin which is a reputable publisher, so I'm inclined to keep though the indications of notability could be better. Can we please not let this discussion degenerate into "Because these sources discuss this mythical animal they must be unreliable" again? FOARP (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * toss that CBC article, the author claims it's from Cwichya Gwich'in Googwandak but it's not there. That's a major problem with some of these, they like to connect the cryptids to legends from native peoples. In proportion in it would be like adding a bunch about Leprechauns to the lede section of Irish people.&mdash;eric 02:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Real Wolfmen: True Encounters in Modern America" is not a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keepSome limited notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete cryptozoology origin, cryptozoology sources.&mdash;eric 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (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.