Deletion of Centre for Fortean Zoology

Comment: the various mentions listed above are just that, mentions: mentions of the centre and their bizarre cryptid-related claims. I see no in-depth coverage of the organisation itself, which would lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Even putting  aside, there's very little here to show notability, and I think our standards should be even higher for organisations that push pseudoscientific woo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Passing, uncritical mentions aren't the same thing as in-depth coverage. Quoting somebody affiliated with the Centre isn't reporting on the history, organization and activities of the Centre; being the source for the token "the Yeti could still be out there" sound bite fails to meet . Add that to the COI/sockpuppet concerns, and it's pretty plain that we're better off without this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: I won't mince words: this organization peddles pseudoscientific nonsense, and I would prefer it not be given a platform. However, this organization's expertise in baseless hooey has been cited a surprisingly massive number of times by reliable sources. For example, BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-15167866 1, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7942954.stm 2, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-38260413 3, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19815457 4, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5180404.stm 5, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kvjdh 6, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21603269 7, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4720797.stm 8, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/7377360.stm 9), ''The Guardian'' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jul/24/conservationandendangeredspecies.internationalnews 1, https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/sep/08/orang-pendek-sumatra-mystery-ape 2 (authored by the organization's director), https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/29/dna-sampling-exposes-nine-yeti-specimens-as-eight-bears-and-a-dog 3, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/zoologists-on-the-hunt-for-tasmanian-tiger-declare-no-doubt-species-still-alive 4), ABC News (Australia) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-30/extinct-or-elusive3f3a-fresh-bid-to-find-tasmania-tiger/5057664 1, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-15/tassie-tiger/5095522 2, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-10-10/dna-tests-to-determine-big-cat-claims/2121312 3), Swissinfo (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/-yeti-skin--sells-at-geneva-auction/30517682 1), ''IGN'' (https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/01/29/capcom-offering-50000-for-evidence-of-real-life-monsters 1 (after the organization partnered with Capcom of all things, https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/01/29/how-to-be-a-real-life-monster-hunter 2), ''The Times'' (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/video-adds-weight-to-loch-ness-monster-eel-theory-j6nlsj0q3 1, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-loch-ness-monster-all-scientists-can-find-are-eels-wgp3tmcs8 2), ''The Daily Telegraph'' (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6247868/Mysterious-Orang-Pendek-apeman-spotted-by-British-expedition.html 1, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/25/cheetah-spotted-barnet-prompts-police-call/ 2, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1994752/Big-Foot-and-Loch-Ness-monster-could-exist.html 3, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4983344/Ancient-legend-of-Satans-visit-reawakened-by-footprints-in-the-snow.html 4), CBC News https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/lake-monster-manipogo-winnipogo-1.4681105 1, the ''National Post'' (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/grainy-images-show-tasmanian-tiger-didnt-go-extinct-80-years-ago-group-claims-it-isnt-a-bloody-kangaroo 1), Al.com (https://www.al.com/wire/2011/07/new_answers_in_mystery_of_selm.html 1), ''The Independent'' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/in-the-footsteps-of-the-yeti-the-hunt-for-mande-burung-890306.html 1).Essentially, while I hate that this organization is notable, they are clearly notable. If anything, I believe based on performing  for this organization the article Jonathan Downes was wrongfully deleted. At the very least, however, as this discussion is currently heavily leaning ''Delete'', this should be a redirect to the article 'Cryptozoology', as the article's 11,000+ page views over the last two years and the amount of reliable sources that cite them indicate this is a plausible search term.Furthermore, the nominator's claim that "Downes authored this article himself" is misleading at best: Downes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Fortean_Zoology&oldid=19801100 created the article back in 2005, but this was his only contribution, and critically, literally no aspect about our current article is the same. This is akin to saying that an IP editor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=2814496 wrote our article on Barack Obama
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)