Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennedi tiger

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. Lourdes 05:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ennedi tiger

[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)

At least two users at the fringe theories noticeboard have failed to find evidence of notability of this cryptid per WP:NFRINGE. All the current sources are fringe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following current usage (which I don't agree with, but whatevs) this would seem to hinge on coverage by a non-cryptozoology source. The publication by Jeanne-Francoise Vincent, who appears to have been a well-published anthropologist [1], would seem to fill that requirement. However, I'm unable to verify this in the text itself; the terms used in the article don't seem to be discoverable, at least not in whatever fraction is searchable on Google books [2]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Vincent's publication can be viewed on Gallica, where searching for the term "hadjel" will bring up the information. It doesn't show the whole pages due to copyright, but it does show some relevant text from the pages. The entire text of the passage does appear on various websites (the opening line is "a Temki, les membres"), but of course they're all cryptozoology websites. Also, please note that this publication only discusses the hadjel, not any of the other cryptids mentioned in the article. I should say that when I added the present information to the article, I wasn't aware that the sources I used aren't considered reliable, so even if the article isn't deleted now, the information that remains when the unreliable sources are removed probably wouldn't be enough to justify an entire article anyway - and if it was, the article would have to be renamed "Hadjel," since Vincent's book doesn't mention any of the others. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gab _ 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hadn't heard of the Ennedi tiger before so I asked friends who study this subject, they also had not heard of the Ennedi tiger. Because all the other editors have found are fringe references, sadly I think the Ennedi tiger on Wikipedia has to go. Sgerbic (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BhagyaMani (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alhtough I have never seen an Ennedi tiger in my life, there's ample sourcing already in the contested article, which renders the subject evidently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to ring the WP:N bell. Cited sources appear to be fringe. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE. I had considered the possibility of a redirect to a suitable cryptozoology related article, but I can't find one that mentions this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2019 (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.