Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithla (creature)

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. JBW (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithla (creature)[edit]

[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Timothy :: talk 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything on this mythical creature, even in fringey sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A purported animal that was supposedly described by a single individual. As mentioned above, there is absolutely no information on this supposed creature at all. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undersourced, fails GNG Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mithla is sometimes spelled as Mitla, as Fawcett does in Exploration Fawcett and Jeremy Mallinson in Travels in Search of Endangered Species. We had an article on that once already, which was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Mitla (cryptid). It is perhaps worth noting that Mallinson confers with Heuvelmans, who we describe as "as a founding figure in the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology." There is no mention of any folkore surrounding the mythical creature. It's a cryptid, proposed by Fawcett. Another author who has written about the mitla is Karl Shuker, the cryptozoologist, here. So much for "This page has no connection with a pseudoscience named cryptozoology". Vexations (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @AleatoryPonderings: and @Vexations: have been diligent in cleaning up this whole "creatures of belief" problem & deserve thanks for their work. --Lockley (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as failing GNG. Some of these other "creatures of belief" should perhaps be sent to draft (as potentially notable subjects, but with the content failing Wikipedia policy in many ways). This particular "creature of belief" does not have article potential.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([1]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (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.