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 merge and redirect to List of cryptids. 11:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Omajinaakoos[edit]

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

There are references, yes, but note that all of them are from the May 21 2010 timeline, with only one from May 25, 2010. Still, the time span of the coverage is too short. All refs died out after May 2010; I can find no more before or after that period.This is just another decomposed lake animal that got a short puff of attention. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If more coverage had been about the cryptid as a legend rather than as a flash in the pan incident, I would've said keep. "Mystery" animals that are discovered to be known species are a dime a dozen. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of cryptids - the legend seems reasonable enough to include there, not so much the dead mink. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the list works for me. I would cut down the amount of lines on the mink maybe, but not remove it completely, I notice the CSM source is pretty good at giving a critical discussion (rather than the usual, "OMG ZOMBIEMINKZ IZ COMING" of other newspapers), so the weight is probably there. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The flash-in-the-pan event of a dead animal is not notable, of course. But, the actual creature itself does not seem to be notable as well. The only actual mention of the name "Omajinaakoos" comes from a single man, whose very brief interview was posted in a couple of the sources, who gives the name and claims that one of his relatives found one 50 years ago. Many of the articles about the incident do not mention that name at all, and upon searching for other references, the only time this name actually comes up at all are just in reference to the same incident, from this one individual's account. So, it fails the GNG as far as having a individual article, and I would also be opposed to merging the information into List of cryptids or another such article, simply because there is nothing to actually verify the creature's supposed existance outside of this single account. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many cryptids are spurious extrapolations from a single account, so it's not completely undue to include it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (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.