Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kikiyaon (2nd nomination)

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 --JForget 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiyaon[edit]

Google books shows only one ghit [1], no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made this stub after a prior article about a cryptid under this title was speedied as a copyright violation. There are, in fact, two sources given: the Mothman book, and an Italian newspaper article. They really say very little about this monster other than the name and the vague description. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although there is very little information available on this legend, there are a few more references (of dubious reliability): [2], [3]. However, I'm mainly hesitant to delete because of the systemic bias issues: it is inevitably going to be difficult to find online references about a legendary creature of the folklore of West Africa. The limited references so far are sufficient, I think, to show that the legend exists; given the obscure subject matter, notability is rather more difficult to ascertain. Terraxos (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the existence of a creature does not mean it should be included as an article (my nose definitely exists but if I create an article about my nose I should expect to see a CSD warning template appear on my talk page soon after). If notability cannot be ascertained, the article should be deleted.-Samuel Tan 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the point about finding scholarly articles about this creature is valid, I'm concerned that it doesn't appear even notable among cryptids. The book referenced in the article actually quotes another author, Darren Naish, about this creature, and it is a very brief mention. Compare with Nguma-monene. Without more verifiable information, how could this be a good article? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the online sources I found that cover the topic significantly are blog entries or personal websites of very dubious reliability. Even this source is blog-like, and seems to be some sort of recounting by the author of African experiences (first hand or otherwise, see its index page).-Samuel Tan 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non-notable. MediaMob (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (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.