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. BD2412 T 06:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many-finned sea serpent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE search did not return any reliable, non-fringe sources that could be used to write a NPOV article or satisfy notability requirements for a standalone article.

No clear criteria: Article seems to be a coatrack for various reported sightings of sea serpents with many fins. If reliable sourcing is found, recommend merge with Sea serpent.

Note: I removed a number of fringe sources and fringe-POV analysis before nominating for deletion. See pre-cleanup version here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete One of Bernard Heuvelmans's classifications, don't need a coatrack standalone article, and sea serpent could use expanded content.—eric 14:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Redirecting or merging a cryptid article seems to just cause problems in the target.—eric 14:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One unsourced sighting in 1899, and it's unclear if On the Nature of Animals refers to just run-of-the-mill imaginary sea serpents or the equally fictitious many-finned variety. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a few book mentions but not significant. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith sea serpent.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea Serpent as the page still receives some traffic. While nothing in the article currently seems to be verifiable, I think the mentions in the google books could at least theoretically merit a mention in the sea serpent article. However, @EricR: if you could elaborate on why they think otherwise, that could change my opinion on this.

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.