Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu

:{{la|Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu}})

Simple reason, it is an article about a living stegosaur that was sighted like once or twice and about a word that appeared on a book by Roy Mackal. Also nominating Muhuru and Ngoubou. Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

: Unsure - there isn't a lot of coverage, but the term does appear to be covered in several books which are available on google books. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Admittedly notability criteria for cryptids are a little strange, in that reliable sourcing means it's no longer a cryptid :p As far as coverage as an unconfirmed animal goes, this does seem to get a fair amount of mentions across the net.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Classical cryptid, mentioned in bibliography. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Kentrosaurus. It is just a name given to said species by local tribes. JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

::That seems an entirely unprovable assertion.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Take note that Mokele Mbembe and Burrunjor, also "dinosaur"-like cryptids are both covered in many sources - books, articles, and tribal legends. If that is not enough both have "foot print" left behind. Take also note that despite all that Burrunjor was deleted per an AFD because of lack of notability [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burrunjor]. Off course, a creature with more reported sighting, more article coverage and even artifacts left would warrant a WP article more than these, right? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge with Muhuru and Nguma-monene. Considering 3 articles talk about nearly the same creature, in similar contexts, I think that warrants it important enough to be kept. Yilangren (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Interestingly, Muhuru is up for deletion too. Maybe you're right, merge, and then delete them both at the same time. Just a suggestion.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• A highly speculative creature with no basis in fact, just scrappy hearsay. Even the article concedes, "No physical evidence for the creature exists." if it had even attained a measure of folklore importance that may be different. But a "few" sightings don't seem to raise it above the millions of other such unsubstantiated claims the world is so full of. Wait, I see a ghost! You did too? Let's put it on Wikipedia! Not trying to sound petulant, just making a candid point. Encyclopedic information should not be based on villager tidbits. However, if new evidence shows this alleged creature truly has a place in folklore, then that might be different. But you know what, I'll bet my lunch you never find it. Let's not use Wiki for inventing creatures out of thin air based on some hokey-pokey nonsense. I ask for a delete in the absence of further evidence for any folklore significance or valid scientific evidence of its existence. And one final note, the article's first line asserts the creature's existence as fact. I'd help fix that if I thought it deserved to be kept.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I had to come back for this one. I just read it again, it fails on every level. I'm thinking Speedy Delete Nobody rebutted my previous opinion, and I think I made a good case.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to add, even within the speculative realm of cryptozoology, this alleged creature doesn't qualify. A "few sightings" with "no physical evidence" is not even above the worth of a vivid dream. No further evidence can be expected, because the article's own description of the "evidence" itself precludes that possibility. Thanks --J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect... somewhere (maybe List of Cryptids. In the Cryptid topics, leaving a redlink is clickbait that will result in all of us being back here for AfD rounds 2, 3, 5, 10, and 52. :-P Though speedy is tempting, "no physical evidence" pretty much is the definition of a cryptid. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Living dinosaur might be plausible. BTW, I was also the nominator, I just have not much time to log in. 130.105.224.60 (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.