Welcome to WikiProject Paranormal, a WikiProject that aims to provide a framework for the improvement and organization of articles related to the paranormal, anomalous phenomena and other similar areas. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask us on our discussion page.
To provide a concise and accurate record of notable beliefs, organizations, experiments, individuals and events which are associated with the paranormal, including their history, background and their current status.
To provide a framework (including infoboxes, categories, and examples of Best Practice) from within which scholarly entries about the paranormal, and related topics, may be produced.
To provide a scholarly set of terminology to describe the paranormal which is technically, culturally, and contextually accurate.
To seek out and apply verifiable mainstream sources to pages within the projects scope with the aim of A) addressing any issues of verifiability and reliability that have been highlighted in existing entries, and B) ensuring that new entries are of sufficient quality that their verifiability and reliability do not become an issue.
To ensure that each entry approaches its topic from a balanced and neutral perspective.
To ensure that the notability of each topic can be gleaned from its entry, without the need for additional explanation.
To ensure that a clear dividing line is established between reporting the belief in/background of the topic in a scholarly manner, and advocating/denouncing the topic itself.
To expand project stubs to full entries and to progress full entries to the next level.
Patrol frequently vandalized pages within the project's scope.
The following articles fall within the scope of the project and have been noted for their outstanding quality. Project members are encouraged use them as examples of good practice and to note their different writing and organizational styles.
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk·contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Paranormal}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.
Basically WP:FRINGE. The one WP:RS (National Geographic) is a quote from a non-notable podcast author which gives this subject a passing mention. The other three sources are all marginal at best. Skeptical Enquirer is a blog post from a self-described "member of the Church of Satan" who in turn mostly cites "personal communication". A Little Bit Human describes their mission as " to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations". The East Tennessean source is a blog post in a small student paper which in turn cites The Skeptical Enquirer, 4Chan, Reddit, TikTok and Tumblr.
And to top it all off, the "artistic depiction of a not-deer" is by the author of this article, complete with image elements tp make it look like a screenshot from a camera viewfinder.
Keep as article creator. The religious views of a journalist have no bearing on their reliability and the personal communications are all with subject matter experts. ALBH providing entertainment content does not make it unreliable, it has an editorial team. Entertainment news sites with editorial teams are generally considered reliable. And an artistic depiction created by a Wikipedia user is not disallowed, see for example literally every image in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. I also don't see how WP:FRINGE applies here since the article does not claim that this cryptid or any other cryptids are actually real. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National Geographic does make a passing mention: the only things it mentions is that they live in the Appalachians, and are deer-like in looks but not in behaviors. I don't think the fact that the quote is from a non-notable author matters, as notability and reliability are different things altogether, but the depth is clearly not enough for WP:SIGCOV.
A Little Bit Human has not been discussed at RSN, and, while they do describe themselves as "our mission to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations", I don't think that's enough to mark them as unreliable. They do appear to have a team of editors and writers, so it might be more solid than Skeptical Enquirer, although I can't say that it is reliable with 100% certainty either.
East Tennessean hasn't been at RSN either, but it does look like they have a level of editorial oversight. The "editorial" category, of which their not-deer article is part, is overseen by a section editor and the executive editor, so it isn't just a blog post, although it still remains a student newspaper.
I looked up the top two people listed at https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/. Allia Luzong describes herself on LinkedIn as "Managing Editor, Lead Social Media Manager, Content Manager, SEO Writer, and then some." Justin Wagner says of himself, "Tasked with editing all content published on the site and ensuring that it follows our style guide, is grammatically correct, and is optimized for SEO. In addition, produced content that aligns with the site's focus, mainly entertainment." Neither of these things say to me "Provides editorial oversight to ensure what we publish is factual". What they say to me is, "If it is likely to generate clicks, we'll publish it". RoySmith(talk)15:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, they do have editors, but you don't think they count because you read a brief description of the editors on LinkedIn and decided what their job is actually like based on that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any actual arguments in favor of deletion. The only arguments I've seen are a critique of a journalist's religion, a claim that entertainment news is unreliable (with no evidence to back it up), a claim that illustrations made by Wikipedians are grounds for deletion, and an unexplained invocation of WP:FRINGE when it doesn't apply in any way. None of these are based in policy. If I were you I would retract this deletion request. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One look at alittlebithuman.com indicates that it clearly fails WP:RS. A reminder that the very first line of WP:RS reads "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This site is nothing more than a bunch of listicles and ad space and likely involves more than a little generative AI. Poor "sources" like this need to be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe I'm between weak vs. full delete, but ultimately I just don't see WP:SIGCOV especially in the sources mentioned. NatGeo is the only reliable source, but that's very much passing mention. There's been discussion above on other sources, but even with potential editorial teams, two appear to be more entertainment rather than fact-based, and the student paper/editorial isn't something that would really contribute to notability either. Source-wise I'm just not seeing enough for notability for a made up animal. That said, looking at the article I can see an angle an article could exist in where it's just describing the myth followed by explaining what the mistaken ID could be from, such as a sick deer. If there were better sources, I could see a smaller/stub article existing while sticking closely to WP:FRINGE, but I don't see sources that could support that right now. KoA (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say fringe doesn't make sense here when we're talking about the cyrptid category of articles. That's a core guideline affecting those articles. It basically means we don't take seriously Bigfoot-esque stuff, but in high profile cases like that one or Loch Ness that do have notability anyways, we do describe the myth as such and how it may have come to be. Not all made up things are going to reach the level of warranting mention in an encyclopedia.
When I mentioned my delete rationale above though, I didn't see anything that would qualify this for a merge in terms of sourcing. A redirect would have slightly better grounding, but even that seems to be a shaky name at best to use as a search term. The deer mythology article doesn't really seem to be a good home either especially for content or even as a target since that's more about deer mythology that either have some degree of WP:GNG or WP:DUE such as traditional or established mythology. This particular article seems to be more of a WP:NEOLOGISM issue for the not-deer name instead:
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term This one seems to be below that threshold of just being an internet/social media blip rather than a neologism in frequent use that we have good secondary sources on to generate content on regardless of notability. KoA (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all four sources are (not self-)published and seem to have some level of editorial oversight , and either seem clearly reliable or at least not unreliable. I don't agree that WP:FRINGE is relevant here, I don't see the article lending credence to the myth actually being true, and it also doesn't seem to give WP:UNDUE coverage to those claiming it is. Concur with Artemisia that a newspaper being inclined towards entertainment value doesn't inherently make it unreliable unless we believe that the facts used to create the entertainment value are false. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per significant coverage in Skeptical Inquirer, East Tennessean, and journalnews.com.ph (linked by Trekker). I'm not sure what to make of the last of those sources, the online version of Filipino newspaper People's Journal (mentioned passingly on RSN here). The East Tennessean, a student newspaper, probably has dubious editorial standards, but not none. I'm not so bothered by Skeptical Inquirer, which is a green source in WP:RSP. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "sources" used here are unacceptable and this is a WP:FRIND topic that requires really solid sources. For example, claims of monster sightings, especially when they're being called "cryptids" (a 'sciencey' word from the pseudoscience of cryptozoology) fall under the domain of WP:FRINGE. That said, there is not much to even consider here: If notable, this would be a topic for folklorists but as it stands we don't even have a single quality independent source authored by an expert in folklore (that is a folklorist). The sources we do have are throwaway junk (see for example https://alittlebithuman.com ). Until this receives notable attention from a folklorist and ideally it makes its way through peer review, easy delete. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not promote the fringe theory that cryptids/monsters are real, the article is about the folklore surrounding them. The Skeptical Enquirer source does include claims made by academic folklorists. A peer reviewed study is not necessary for something to be notable. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article from the Skeptical Enquirer mentions sending emails to folklorists, one of which responded and said he had never heard of it. That's the extent of any folklorist involvement at this time. In short, right now this article is propped up by the sourcing equivalent of a broken pencil and a half-chewed eraser. If you want this article to stick around, you need far better sourcing. As a point of advice, if you cannot produce rock-solid sourcing, the wise move is to just wait until you find excellent sourcing or you're just going to receive negative feedback from editors with a lot of experience in these corners. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a brief summary in deer in mythology (although wow, that article isn't great). i'm in agreement with charlotte that it just barely misses GNG for now, and i'm not thrilled with the quality of the sources. however, i don't find the appeals to FRINGE by roysmith & bloodofox convincing at all. i think this certainly has the potential to become notable as a folklore topic - maybe it should be incubated in userspace until there is some SIGCOV in published academic sources. edit: upon further thought on the practicalities of a merge & re-reading all the arguments, i'm leaning more towards a redirect to Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures (if Appalachian folklore had its own article i would prefer that as a target, but it is currently a redirect). ... sawyer * any/all * talk12:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's long and unpleasant history with cryptozoology" is completely irrelevant to this specific page and this discussion. Having a grudge against one specific subject doesn't mean that this page itself violates WP:FRINGE. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i see no reason for comments on any particular individual's experience in the cryptozoology topic. it is unconstructive and irrelevant. ... sawyer * any/all * talk12:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptozoology is the single most relevant article for this topic. If you're working in this space and have not read it, then I suggest you become familiar with the topic before commenting further. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am pretty familiar with cryptozoology & folklore in general. i have little experience with these topics specifically in relation to wikipedia. ... sawyer * any/all * talk13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, there's a constant struggle with these articles and that is etting them sourced appropriately with scholars in folklore studies versus whatever media sources or fringe sources pick them up. I've written many related articles and had to delete many others and the sole difference is the question of WP:RS and WP:FRIND, as have several other editors here. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a google scholar search for "not-deer" appalachia folklore pulls up two results from Appalachian Journal which seem promising, although i can't find these articles listed in the contents of any of the relevant volumes of the journal nor can i find access to them anywhere else. not sure what's going on there. ... sawyer * any/all * talk12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liles, L. (2023) "Hold Your Head Underwater", Appalachian Journal, 51.
Campbell, O. (2023) "Why We Dance With The Devil In The Cold Moonlight-Cause He's There!" Appalachian Journal, 51.
both have the same preview text on google scholar: "… stories about what to Appalachians-and only the Appalachians- do when you meet the Devil or the not-deer… underscoring the sense for sure." in the Appalachians that nature is incredibly …" it may be subsections of a single article, but i'm not sure which one - https://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-51-no-1-2... sawyer * any/all * talk13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book A Guide to Sky Monsters : Thunderbirds, the Jersey Devil, Mothman, and Other Flying Cryptids mentions the Mising, "sometimes described as a deerlike creature with wings." Not close enough, I fear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, it appears that there are enough sources to retain the information, whether as its own page or as part of another page relating to cryptozoology or deer mythology. I advocate for a standalone page or a unique Not-Deer heading on another page in order to more easily find this article via search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I'm not aware of any campaigns to keep this page open, if that is what you're asking. Though, that doesn't mean that a campaign does not exist somewhere.
I heard about the Not-Deer cryptid earlier today and wanted to research it. Wikipedia is my go-to; even though I haven't edited in a while, I use Wikipedia at least once a day. I find that Wikipedia does a good job condensing information across multiple sources and distilling the information into an easy to navigate source. So, I guess that's another reason why I want to keep this page, rather than lose the information forever. Coulson Lives (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NatGeo has a brief trivial mention. Of the sources that discuss this topic in greater depth, the East Tennessean is a student newspaper from ETSU, A Little Bit Human appears to be an SEO-driven bloggy site, and Skeptical Inquirer appears more solid, but the article on the not-deer is from a blog within the SI site, so editorial oversight is unclear. Of the three, the East Tennesseean and A Little Bit Human are basically regurgitating chatter on discussion boards. I'm basically convinced by others that for WP:FRINGE topics like cryptozoology, much stronger reliable sourcing is required than what we have here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DraftifyMerge per Sirfurboy's arguments as an WP:ATD. given that there is no agreement here on the reliability of most of the sources or if WP:FRINGE applies and that the article is relatively new. On the understanding that if this article is to go back to mainspace at some point that it be through WP:AFC. TarnishedPathtalk00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: A very likely non-existent creature that doesn't seem to have coverage in RS. This [4] and [5] are about the only two sources that aren't in the article. I wouldn't consider either one a RS. If we had a description in a book talking about cryptids, I'd likely change my vote. Can't all be the Loch Ness monster I suppose; that level of coverage is an exception for these types of "things" Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures per Sawyer777 (albeit they said 'redirect' but see below). Per the relist comment, asking if there is an ATD we can agree on. I think that target is more focussed than the one suggested by Queen of Hearts, although the deer in mythology target is not wrong. I think this is more a folklore of the US thing than mythology in general. I think the draftify ATD is acceptable, as the page is new, but that would rely on the topic being notable such that a page should be written. On that, the sources are really very marginal, and RoySmith's comment directly above is pertinent. Oaktree b leans weakly towards keeping, but these are not great sources. The fact that this is not covered at the Folklore of the United States page is telling. It is hard to make a case for a standalone page on a marginally notable subject when the larger page that this would be a child of does not even mention the subject. A paragraph or two could be condensed from this page onto that one, and this should then be redirected there under WP:PAGEDECIDE, unless and until this becomes much more fully covered by reliable sources such that a spinout page can be justified. Note that a redirect to that target is not possible - it has to be a merge (however small), as the target must mention the subject to be a valid merge target - and currently it doesn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fundamentally opposed to a selective merge as described by @Sirfurboy, but that would still require WP:RS and I don't see that we have any. If a topic meets WP:V but not WP:N, it can be included in some article about a more general topic. But if it doesn't meet WP:V, it should be deleted. RoySmith(talk)13:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not major folklore, but there's precedent for keeping articles on "internet things" -- in fact, the whole internet culture WikiProject. I think it should really be kept on that basis. Plus, as an internet thing, I don't know if it would really fit in the folklore page. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep although if it is forced I would prefer a merge over a redirect. This article is useful as an overview of a recent trend, it's cited to reasonably OK sources (and well-cited), and if you look above we have documented evidence that it's useful to a significant number of people (as one of them knows enough about Wikipedia to comment on AFD) while simultaneously being factual, interesting, and cited. The sources are entertainment-focused -- well, the topic itself is an internet rumor, not an academic subject. WP:FRINGE concerns are about presentation, not AFD. And the fact that a good, cited article exists on this topic proves that it is possible to write a good, cited article on this topic (the point of notability), making this article notable. I would encourage anyone new to this AFD discussion to read the full article -- it goes into the origins, chronic wasting disease, etc... -- it's pretty interesting, which combined with citations makes for a good Wikipedia article. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article works much better as its own page than a somewhat forced merge into folklore pages. It's kind of an internet thing. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are entertainment-focused -- well, the topic itself is an internet rumor, not an academic subject is exactly why merge into folklore pages is wholly appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To join, sign your name at the /Participants page and add the main page to your watchlist. Members can add the following userboxes to identify themselves as members of the project. A list of members with these userboxes is available at Category:WikiProject Paranormal participants.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
{{blackproject}} - Notice placed on talk pages of articles that discuss black projects — "highly classified military/defense projects, unacknowledged publicly by the government, military personnel, or defense contractors"
This page discusses a military black project.
Such projects are highly classified initiatives often concealed from the public. Due to their secretive nature, authoritative sources, such as government or defense contractors, may neither confirm nor acknowledge their existence. As a result, even the most reliable sources may rely on speculation.
It is crucial to ensure that the article is supported by well-documented and reliable sources. Avoid unverifiable claims, conjecture, or vague predictions.
FA
GA
Area 51
Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 49
.svg){kind=small}
.png)
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Resources from Wikiversity
