Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Row (cryptozoology)

{{ns:0|T}}

:{{la|Row (cryptozoology)}} ([{{fullurl:Row (cryptozoology)|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Row (cryptozoology)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete by the article's own admission "The only treatment of it is in Bernard Heuvelmans' book On the Track of Unknown Animals. There is but a single report of even any native stories about the Row". Not notable. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 07:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's a cryptozoology article. It's in the very nature of such things that many of those listed, and many of the most notable, will be hoaxes. Is a Sasquatch, Bunyip or Loch Ness Monster WP:V? Our purpose isn't to document the animal (it almost certainly doesn't exist), but to document the report or hoax within the annals of cryptozoological reports. As a report (albeit a negative report), it's credible and verifiable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed that the purpose is to document the hoax, but only if the hoax is notable. Loch Ness has appeared in a number of media, same as Yeti. I can not find anything on Row, and the article itself seems to suggest that the only book which documents it is the cited source. Per the general notability guidelines a subject must have "Significant coverage". ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

: In the field of cryptozoology, any mention by Heuvelmans would be regarded as "significant". 'On the Track of Unknown Animals' isn't just some random pamphlet, it pretty much defined the field. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Andy that a mention from Heuvelmans is significant; On the Track of Unknown Animals is considered the "Bible" of cryptozoology. However, I don't think anyone (Heuvelmans included) ever took this story seriously, and there aren't any other reported sightings of the Row besides the one mention in the book. It might be best to mention the Row in the article about On the Track of Unknown Animals, rather than giving it its own article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't deserve its own article, but could get a cited mention in cryptozoology.--Dmol (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax with only a single mention. Not notable enough for its own article (it certainly fails WP:N), but no reason not to include it within the main cryptozoology article, or create an article dedicated to cryptozoology hoaxes (if there's not already one). 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As said above, OTTOUA is the definitive work on the field, but it has become dated in over 50 years. Part of my intent in creating this page is for anyone looking for current information can see basically that Heuvelmans still is all there is. There actually is a second reference- the original book claim. Perhaps a page for that book or the author might be more appropriate. But I've never been able to find a copy, and my copy of OTTOUA was stolen years ago. Referring it on OTTOUA's page might work, but Heuvelmans mentions a LOT of critters not found in other sources and it would probably unnecessary detail to mention them all. This is the only one such that gets its own chapter in the book, and that in itself is notable. I can work on the article a bit- but it won't be in the next few days. CFLeon (talk) 02:36, 10 August 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.