Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringdocus
Not seeing any sources that strike me as , i.e. not a single analysis by any proper scholar. Just popular science (with the science in question being cryptozoology, or if you feel generous, urban legend/folklore studies). The latter would be RS if the authors/publishers were reliable, but I don't think they are. Ping me if you want to argue otherwise and would like me to reconsider my vote
— User:Piotrus, 02:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)