Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil Monkey

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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Monkey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching, I was also only able to find fringe sources. Nothing passed WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Do not merge with Bigfoot. -The Gnome (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we sure this isn't a hoax? I only went through a few pages of google, but I didn't find any sources older than this article. Natureium (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared in Mysterious Creatures which came out in 2002 and cites earlier sources. I don't think there's enough coverage to justify an article, but it doesn't appear to be entirely fabricated. –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, ’’Mysterious Creatures’’ is deep in fringe territory and also generally highly unreliable — I’d take a close look at whatever mentioned there to be sure it actually says what the authors claim. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a reliable source, my point was that the article itself isn't the source of the hoax. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. It's out there! -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC) ...until we delete it[reply]

Weak Keep animal planet and other WP:RS such as this provide sufficient sourcing to validate subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mysterious Creatures, as well as Weird Virginia is sufficient for me to believe this isn't Wikipedia-based citogenesis. Of course, this is a collection of folklore, and was likely invented by somebody. The article is currently WP:TNT-deletion quality, and List of cryptids is not a reasonable redirect target (as that page explicitly avoids redlinks. As I feel it meets current notability guidelines I must !vote keep, but perhaps those guidelines should be adjusted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject does not appear to have been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of promulgators and popularizers. Occasionally a fringe source like Mysterious Creatures from a cryptozoology promulgator/popularize produces references that might be considered reliable in of themselves, but in this case it's North American Biofortean Review and Lauren Coleman's Mysterious America. --tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.