Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingonek
as per Hzh.  It is irrelevant whether one believes it exists or not. What is relevant is that the subject has been reported in reliable independent sources. We do not go  by truth here. We go by what |reliable sources say. Also, considering the age of reporting and the fact that Kenya is a developing country, I doubt one will find newer/more online reporting without reference to the old reporting. Considering the age, one is perhaps more likely to find them in old books/publications. The fact that one is able to find some online sources is just fortunate and indeed, adds to the notability of the subject. Besides, it is part of the country's folklore  just as the Loch Ness Monster is to Scotland. There is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster as most grown and intelligent adults  know or should know, yet we have an article on that. It is irrelevant how old the sources are. It was notable enough to be reported and re-reported. There is |no time limit to notability. The very fact that there are sources on the subject establishes notability and passes 
— User:Tamsier, 07:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)