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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ningen (cryptid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The entire article is copied from http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Ningen, and is otherwise unsourced. No reliable sources for this mythical creature. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If it is entirely copied, why is it not marked as a copyvio? If it is entirely a copyvio as asserted, then I think the copyvio police could simply delete the article, and I do not see why it is opened at AFD. --doncram 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically an article can be nominated for speedy deletion by wp:G12 if it is completely a copyright violation. This should not be at AFD. Or is it not actually a copyright violation? --doncram 00:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content is released under a compatible license, and was mentioned as a source from the creation of the article. I added the attribution as the intent seemed clear. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No RS exist. Only sources I can find [1][2] are copy-pastes of each other, and neither the books nor the publisher (Text101/Cram101) comes anywhere near WP:SCHOLARSHIP. FourViolas (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources.Glendoremus (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete smells like a hoax to me. I seriously doubt Japanese government researchers would use the word "human" to describe what is reported in this article. If I put on my "assume good faith" hat, I'll say that somebody misheard the word ningyo, which is the Japanese word for mermaid. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (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.