Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jba fofi

[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, there is no coverage in reliable sources that could be used to establish notability or write a NPOV article. Could not find any sources that support the tribal legend/mythology claims.

Note: I recently removed a significant amount of content that was either unreliably sourced or cited sources that discuss giant spiders in general with no mention of "Jba fofi". See pre-cleanup version here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sources that discuss this spider:- Daily Star - here, La Vanguardia - here, The Journal - here, Tenerife Weekly (a weekly freebie paper) - here, and does it appear in Mysteries of the unknown : inside the world of the strange and unexplained. (Time Life book ISBN 9781618933522) (not sure but a gsearch threw it up, my old lappie didnt want me to look at it:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable sources can be used to meet GNG.

Daily Star is a tabloid, listed at Perennial sources as "less reliable than the Daily Mail".

Maybe La Vanguardia appears reliable, however it only devotes a single paragraph to J'ba fofi.

Tenerife Weekly's tabloid-style coverage cites Cryptid Wiki.

The Journal provides a decent writeup, although we don't often cite Q&A columns.

Maybe Mysteries of the Unknown's coverage consists of "This allaged beast looks like a tarantua, but with a 4- to 6-foot leg span." I would question the reliability of any "mysterious phenomena compendium".

We have a few marginal sources, but whether is meets WP:SIGCOV is questionable. There are no academic sources and not enough content to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also mentioned in Donavan Speight's The Congo Conspiracy Latter Days. Some blogs (e.g. [1]) report sightings by various explorers( cf. "Giant Spider " in Eberhardt's "Mysterious Creatures : A Guide to Cryptozoology" : Giant Spider, Unknown arthropod Inverteb rate of Central Africa and Australasia. Physical description: Huge spider. Distribution: Democratic Republic of the Congo; Papua New Guinea. Significant sightings: R. K. Lloyd and his wife were motoring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1938 when they saw a large object crossing the trail in front of them. At first, they thought it was a cat or a monkey, but they soon realized it was a spider with legs nearly 3 feet long ... . The story is reported also in Hidden Animals: A Field Guide by Michael Newton). Not much. 188.218.87.87 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useable here:

Congo Conspiracy is a thriller novel.

Personal blogs are not reliable sources, especially ones with "This blog is entirely humorous and should not at all be taken seriously" disclaimers.

Eberhardt is a fringe cryptozoological source.

Newton is another fringe source which relays a secondhand account via another crypozoologist, with no mention of the J'ba fofi name. 17:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete If someone writes an article for William J. Gibbons that would be the appropriate place for any content. I couldn't find anything independent of Gibbons that there is such a myth, but fofi might actually be close to a Baka word for spider.—eric 16:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to have been presented here at the AFD, and there is no requirement for sources to be academic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Slatersteven, the Baka are a real people of Central Africa. Should Wikipedia really be claiming they have this legend based on the word of some guy from the Institute for Creation Research who was out looking for dinosaurs? A source simply repeating some story found on the internet is not significant coverage, and without at least examining it's origin cannot be reliable.—eric 12:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a source repeating something means they have noticed it, hence it is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2019 (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.