Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-finned sperm whale

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 redirect to List of cryptids. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-finned sperm whale[edit]

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

This article appears to cover a non-notable topic. It contains only one reference, which is to a fringe source. A google search does not reveal a sufficient body of reliable sources addressing this topic to establish notability; in fact, this editor can find none at all at this time. Since the topic has apparently not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it does not meet the general notability guideline and is a good candidate for deletion. From another viewpoint, the article covers a relatively minor aspect of a fringe topic, and is therefore on its face non-notable, and also possibly an instance of WP:Undue weight. Locke9k (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Shows up in five different books on a Gbooks search. Difficult to tell without knowing how extensive the coverage is, but without further information I'd guess that this just scrapes it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found the same thing Chris did. It could be merged into to the main article for the species, but I think it is more appropriate (and actually less undue weight, if that makes sense) as a stand-alone article. LadyofShalott 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I also saw these books, the are all cryptozoological books as far as I can see. These do not qualify as independent reliable sources on a cryptozoological topic, particularly given its fringe nature. Merely appearing in any books doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability; what is needed is significant mention in books or other sources that are reliable and independent of the topic. Given this distinction, do you believe that any of the books shown are reliable, independent sources for this purpose? If you can point out a few and I can find significant coverage of the topic in those books, I will happily withdraw the nomination. Locke9k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cryptids, where it is already listed. Zero academic sources, no news sources, passing mention in one sentence of one book and covered in reasonable detail in one other book. Not enough for a stand-alone article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TimVickers' argument, or simply Delete. Notability really seems to be a problem with this topic; as far as I can tell, it hasn't been addressed in print outside of brief mentions in cryptozoological literature. ClovisPt (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to List of cryptids. Some mentions in some fringe books doesn't give this (fictional) animal notability. p.s. One of those books is a Wikipedia mirror. Fences&Windows 02:22, 4 December 2009 (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.