Dingonek – There is no consensus in this DRV discussion as to whether the "no consensus" closure was correct. Relisting the AfD discussion wouldn't be appropiate because it was already relisted twice. This means that the "no consensus" closure is maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evaluation of consensus regarding the notability of this cryptid does not adequately consider the WP:FRINGE guideline. Although most of the "Keep" !votes say that cryptozoologists and credulous early-20th-century accounts are reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, the guideline states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" and few or none of the provided sources actually meet this requirement. My opinion is that arguments that run counter to a guideline should be discarded by the closer. I discussed this with the closer, Michig, and we have a difference of opinion on whether or not this local consensus can trump an existing guideline. –dlthewave☎ 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please complete the following sentence: "I want the result to be overturned to ______". I've read your statement above, and I'm not sure which way you're arguing. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete". I feel that the "Keep" !votes contradict the WP:FRINGEpolicyguideline. –dlthewave☎ 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - as pointed out by dlthewave, the applicable notability guideline is WP:NFRINGE, and simply counting the votes to close on "no consensus" doesn't seem to have taken that into account. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Policy-based arguments better support deletion; a single source does not support notability, especially for a fringe topic. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Strongly in agreement with discussion above. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There truly was no consensus here. Experienced editors were on both sides of the argument and had the chance to interpret WP:FRINGE for themselves. While guidelines do trump local consensus, local consensus varied here on how to apply the guidelines. I also note three of the above !voters were involved in the XfD; if endorsed as a no consensus close, I would suggest trying again at AfD in a few months if the article has not been improved. SportingFlyertalk 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was there though? I didn't see any evidence of keep votes even attempting to interpret WP:FRINGE. I just went and read through again, and I can't find one argument explaining how this meets that guideline. --tronvillain (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm satisfied there were enough !keep votes which addressed WP:GNG in the context of WP:NFRINGE that this should not be overturned. SportingFlyertalk 22:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stilling waiting for how this is an any way meetings WP:GNG, as it couldn't be more explicit: We have yet to find a single source that meets GNG's requirement of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't the point of a DRV, unfortunately. There were enough users who thought WP:GNG was met to merit a no consensus close. SportingFlyertalk 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions aren't a simple headcount, though. If the sheer number of !votes were what swayed the decision, it was an improper close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing AfD is a simple head count. I'm saying you have two groups of !voters who think very differently about the quality of sourcing in the article. That's a clear no consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One group is arguing based on established policy, the other is arguing against established policy. If the latter wants to change policy, they're free to go debate that. But they can't use an AFD to suddenly declare that FRINGE sources satisfy GNG. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I strongly disagree with you. There are times when one side of the discussion is clearly against policy. This is not one of those times. The keep !voters are nowhere near clearly wrong, demonstrated through the robust nature of the discussion. I would be more inclined to agree with you if the keep voters were along the lines of "clearly notable, passes WP:GNG," but you have experienced, reasonable editors on both sides of this discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. As I pointed out on my talk page, the argument that sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics is a bit silly. The argument above is that one particular interpretation of WP:FRINGE trumps consensus, which it doesn't. There was no consensus to delete the article. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) I would also note that contrary to the 'single source' argument presented above, there were several sources identified in the discussion (and there are many more in Google Books). --Michig (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody made the argument that "sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics". The argument was that sources written by cryptozoologists and their promoters are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. As several editors pointed out, there are many sources that discuss "cryptids" such as Bigfoot from a scienttific viewpoint, however these sources do not exist for the Dingonek. Firsthand accounts may sometimes be used as a primary source, but they would also need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, so having "many sources" is not sufficient to establish notability. The reliability of these unnamed GBooks hits would need to be assessed before they can be counted. –dlthewave☎ 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies in the view that the only sources that are valid for an article on a cryptid would be scientific sources. Cryptids have an element of science, pseudoscience, folklore, culture, and downright bullshit. The argument that sources that discuss these from a non-scientific viewpoint are not reliable is fallacious. There appear to be several books that simply describe what has been claimed, what others have written, and sometimes offering possible explanations based on real animals - as long as these sources aren't just making stuff up from scratch, there's no reason to discount them as reliable sources. Indeed, some of these sources describe the Dingonek as "the stuff of legend and wild speculation" and a "fanciful creature", which hardly seems the work of 'cryptozoologists and their promoters'. --Michig (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read our cryptozoology article? Cryptozoology is a subculture with close ties to Young Earth creationism that advocates pseudoscience that experts like Donald Prothero frequently compare to Holocaust denialism. Under no circumstances are these references in any sense reliable. Seriously, a little research goes a long way when it comes to pseudosciences. This article is not about a "cryptid"—itself an anti-academic term the pseudoscience coined to avoid the word "monster" and appear more scientific to the public in the early 80s—it's about a creature some big game hunters in the 20th century claim to have knowledge of. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting way off topic talking about holocaust denialism. I get that you don't like cryptozoology, but it's not relevant to the discussion and you need to recognise that your POV is just that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'cryptid' as "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti". The Dingonek is "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti", therefore it is a cryptid. --Michig (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've conveniently left out the most crucial part of the OED's definition: "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". Additionally, that reference to Holocaust denialism comes from Donald Prothero's description of the subculture, which is quite on topic, particularly when you're arguing that cryptozoology source should be treated by Wikipedia as reliable. This is bizarre behavior—you're presumably yourself not a cryptozoologist, so why are you using terminology internal to the subculture to refer to monsters? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't 'conveniently' leave anything out - the description above is taken word for word from the OED website. When you resort to behaviour like this you come across as having an axe to grind and lacking objectivity and reasonableness, and as a result you weaken your arguments, which are then less likely to be given weight when closing discussions. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's tough to assume good faith with a user who edits the a dictionary entry they present to back their POV (I wouldn't have noticed that you had altered the definition had I not been the one to add it to Wikipedia in the first place). At this point you seem to be deep in your trench and squarely aimed at getting these fringe sources on the site. I won't help you with that, but if you can find a reliable source discussing this topic somewhere, preferably from an academic source, I'll switch my vote to keep and add it to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are claiming I edited to 'back my POV'. If you mean the definition of 'cryptid' above, you can compare it with this. And I'm not sure what you think my POV is, and what fringe sources you think I'm trying to 'get on the site'. You are not making much sense. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are people who reasonably believed that this article should have been deleted based on policy. But I also think that at least User:Bloodofox is not approaching the issue of Cryptids objectively. Instead everywhere we see the same WP:POVFIGHTER behaviour and the assumption that anyone disagreeing with that POV must be a supporter of Cryptozoology. The comparison to Holocaust Denial is absolutely unwarranted and distasteful in the extreme, and should be withdrawn. I do not think any of the !Keep votes were made out of support for Cryptozoology. Few of us have even been involved in previous discussion about Cryptids on Wiki. Most were simply previously uninvolved editors contributing on AfD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every editor here has come over from some other related article, and most of the keep votes have tried similar approaches to get cryptozoologist sources on the wiki elsewhere. This is nothing new. And as this article's primary author (and cryptozoology's primary author), I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here about POV. These corners have in fact crawled with members of the subculture in the past (and some editors, including no doubt some editors here, are in fact cryptozoologists, as their off-site posts reveal). If you have a problem with Donald Prothero's quote (where he compares the subculture to Holocaust denial and UFO abduction subcultures), take it up with him. It does a good job of quickly communicating the level of fringe that cryptozoologists espouse. Meanwhile, find a reliable source on this topic and I'll change my vote to keep and add it to the article myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'd never even heard of cryptozoology until 2-3 months ago when this campaign of deletions started popping up in AFD and have been insistent that it is pseudoscience. 2) You don't get to just invoke holocaust denial as a debating tactic by saying you're just quoting someone else. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looking at the keep !votes in the AFD, I don't see them as going against the guideline which says (as for all guidelines) "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I do not think the !voters were acting in ignorance or wishing to flout any WP principles. The discussion did not reach even a rough consensus.
Overturn and delete Horrible close from someone, who days back was ranting about poor closes; favoring a zeal to delete stuff. Pretty clearly, his own philosophical beliefs have traversed into his closer's hat or that he is unable to weigh arguments.∯WBGconverse 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get a thicker skin, please. ∯WBGconverse 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behave better. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate, with the deletion rationale being a failure of WP:V, zero reliable secondary sources. There are no suitable sources, but the discussion did not include an analysis of all the sources linked by the “keep” !voters. I think they all fail, but the case that all fail was not made in the discussion. Yes, the page needs to be deleted, but the case for deletion needs to be better made. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Oyi. Discussion is a classic NC outcome. Keep !voters don't have great sources, but they do have reliable sources. Not for this existing (it almost certainly doesn't and never did), but for the myth existing. In an ideal world, we'd merge to the List of cryptids article. But my sense is we're deleting any entry there that doesn't have an article (which is unwise IMO, that's what lists can be good for). Hobit (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ones cited in the keep votes. Yes, they aren't "high-quality academic sources". No, they don't need to be. If the article claimed this thing existed, sure. But as it is, this is an article about a myth. And these sources are fine for that. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're including the cryptozoologist sources, as somehow reliable sources, despite the large amount of academic literature we've accrued that describes the subculture as deeply fringe and at times outright compares it to Holocaust denial and often notes its ties to Young Earth creationism (many reliable sources on this over at cryptozoology). Cryptozoologists in fact do claim these things exist, often as living dinosaurs. This is an article about a big-game hunter's account of a fabulous beast in Africa, which may or may not stem from some level of tradition. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The Delete arguments here have far more basis in the WP:FRINGE guideline, specifically WP:NFRINGE, and therefore deserve to be given greater weight. NFRINGE says that for a fringe theory to be notable it must be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications" which are independent of the proponents of the fringe theory. Cryptozoology is a fringe theory, so sources written by proponents of cryptozoology are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of cryptids. This is not the same as saying that any sources writing about cryptozoology are insufficient, as it depends who's writing the source. Several Keep comments referenced a book by Bernard Heuvelmans, who our article describes as "probably best known as a founding figure of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology". That therefore disqualifies the source for the purposes of demonstrating notability here. Some other sources were claimed as evidence of notability, but they were all shown to have serious flaws in the discussion e.g. being more than a hundred years old, or being a children's book. This rather undermines the claim that these sources meet the "serious and reliable manner" standard of NFRINGE. Hut 8.5 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm trying to wrap my head around these arguments. People at one point believed in Zeus (and some still do). Most of our coverage of Zeus comes from these people. Obviously Zeus has enough coverage to meet any guideline. But it seems like the arguments being made here would put Zeus under WP:FRINGE, and I just don't buy that as a reasonable thing. Here I see a myth. Why can't we cover that with the level of sourcing we have? Hobit (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there we rely on experts like anywhere else. In the case of folklore and its genre myth, we rely on academics: Example A, example B, Example C. We do not invoke fringe sources and we handle primary sources appropriately. We lack a single reliable, independent source for this particular entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying we have no sources which reliably claim that this is a known cryptid? That WP:V isn't met on that claim? And you didn't really address my point. Does WP:FRINGE apply to Zeus? If not, could you explain why it does apply here and not there? Hobit (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a religious analogy is the best one to use here. The relationship between religion and pseudoscience/fringe theories is a controversial topic and religious claims are often deemed exempt from classification as fringe theories due to their widespread nature. For example Christianity is not usually considered a fringe theory even though most versions of it makes claims which would normally get it classified as such (that somebody could walk on water, resurrect the dead, etc). But if you do want to apply fringe theory standards to Zeus then I strongly disagree with your assertion that most coverage of Zeus comes from people who believe in Zeus. Most available reliable sources about Zeus come from modern classics scholars who don't believe in Zeus any more than other modern people do. Even if that wasn't the case the existence of some such sources would meet the NFRINGE standard. I do also think you're on somewhat shaky ground deeming this topic to be just folklore. It isn't a tradition with a long history, it's a claim made about a specific incident in 1910. Hut 8.5 07:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is usually a bad argument, but let's consider the many, many articles about apparitions of the Virgin Mary, for which the only sources are typically Christian-related, and reports of what the witnesses said. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? If you find fringe sources on an article, remove them. That goes for any article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I look forward to your next campaign of article deletions against miracles and apparitions from various religions. FOARP (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you don't edit much in these corners. I write and rewrite articles about folkore and religion topics on the site frequently. Point me toward the fringe sources and I'll remove them. I do it all the time. Or, of course, you could, per any of the site's many guidelines on the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete with a WP:TROUT to the closer who seemed to put their thumbs on the scale if I am reading their rationale in this discussion correctly. The delete !voters had WP:PAG on their side. The keep !voters had their love of cryptozoology. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. jps (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that User:FOARP, User:Ryan shell, User:Hzh, User:Slatersteven, User:Tamsier, and User:Rhododendrites all !voted keep simply because they "love cryptozoology"? Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this claim so that we can evaluate whether this is a good argument for discounting their contributions to the discussion? --Michig (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I'm not sure I'm allowed a vote here but we were all very clear that Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that none of us believed that the subject actually exists. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: I'm sure it wasn't your intention but that message is arguably inappropriate canvassing, as it pings everybody who expressed one opinion in the AfD of this discussion with a partisan message. I suggest you notify the other AfD participants as well. Hut 8.5 08:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that most of the delete votes are already present here but the remaining one (USER:William Harris) should be pinged in here as well. Possible the keep votes just weren't as well organised. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just giving the keep !editors an opportunity to respond to the accusation made against them, which I felt was totally unfounded. The delete !voters had largely weighed in here already quite early on. This edit looks more like canvassing to me. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications on relevant noticeboards is not canvassing. --tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to the AfD perhaps, but DRV is (or should be) about judging the closure, not AfD part 2. --Michig (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I do love it, in the same way I love Dr Who or The man Who would be...OK not that much. But I feel no more challenged by this then by the idea that Mr Holmes is not real or I will never get to visit the camp at Primrose Hill. I can see these things as fiction and still enjoy them. Now in a way this is closer to my interest in religion, why do people believe this crap. And that is the point, I see this as no more prosthelytizing then having an article on the Eucharist. And as we are so fond of casting about aspersions, another example of them not getting their way and so not letting it drop.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per my preceding discussion. Absolutely none of the keep votes were of the view that Cryptozoology is anything but pseudoscience. We did not violate WP:FRINGE, a guideline. Specifically WP:PROFRINGE is against articles promoting fringe theories which this article by its simple existence does not do, and is anyway an article-quality issue. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has brought up PROFRINGE here. Do you feel that the Keep !votes comply with WP:NFRINGE?
Yes, because we're talking about individual cryptids as cryptids. We're not talking about them as fact. We may as well be discussing Pokemon. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you're using the cryptozoology-internal word cryptid instead of the word the rest of the world, including academics, uses—monster? As a reminder, this article is about a lake monster. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You insisting we only use sources that use the word, that making it the go to term?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This whole discussion about the lack of non-fringe sources on this monster. If it's notable enough for an entry, surely there's some discussion from an independent reliable source somewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why he might have used the word Cryptid, that is a reason we might be using it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, your argument is that talking about cryptids (ignoring the fact that calling them that concedes the story to appropriation by cryptozoology) as cryptids somehow exempts them from basic fringe notability requirements? --tronvillain (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care what it is called. I'm using the term "Cryptids" because that's what y'all keep calling it. If you want to call it a monster, that's fine with me too. I. Don't. Care. About. This. Subject. The only thing I care about is deleting articles that appear to be notable, especially when it's part of bad-tempered campaign. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This behavior is ridiculous, in bad faith, and certainly counts as obstruction to make some kind of point. I'm personally strongly for keeping this article—it makes for an interesting colonial case study—but I know we must first at least produce a single reliable independent source discussing this monster to keep the article from being yet another slipped through pro-fringe piece. Yet there's nothing on JSTOR, Google Scholar, nor any other database I've searched. I'm also the article's primary author, and I've examined all of the sources we have here closely. Not a single one of them is by any stretch reliable. If you're here to build an encyclopedia and not just stick it to your fellow editors, you're going to need to at least first brush up on this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally assuming bad faith. I mean, that's literally what you're doing. Do you get why this behaviour doesn't help you get your message across? FOARP (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the best thing you can do for this thread and the several others you've inserted yourself into related to this topic is to at the very least read cryptozoology. Seriously, get a basic understanding of a topic before you engage in discussion about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice the bit where I said I don't care about this subject? I don't care about it. I. Don't. Care. About. It. What I do care about is sourcing. Macleans is about as reliable a source as they come - but you're saying we should ignore it, and the academic sources. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As above this does not "promote" a pseudoscience. I think fringe is being misapplied (or perhaps applied like a sledge hammer).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per FOARP. Tamsier (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete A few statements from explorers a century ago that they think they saw some weird creature do not a notable cryptid make. Failure to account for WP:FRINGE but also WP:LASTING apply. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Given that independent academic sources have been given (old sources are still valid sources), the argument presented is simply a dismissal of sources they don't like for no reason other than that they don't like them, and is therefore invalid and a misuse of WP:FRINGE. Hzh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent academic sources"? Are we to believe that you think sources that state that the evidence for the Dingonek "is very positive and believable" and that the Dingonek is a "A New Monster Discovered in Darkest Africa" (MacLean's, 1918) and an eyewitness account of a "head big as that of a lioness but shaped and marked like a leopard, two long white fangs sticking down straight out of his upper jaw, back broad as a hippo, scaled like an armadillo, but colored and marked like a leopard, and a broad fin tail" (1910, In Closed Territory) are independent academic sources, or maybe the entry in the East Africa Natural History Society that claims that the In Closed Territory account might well refer to a lost dinosaur that wouldbe totally great to shoot—or are you chiming in here without having read any of the sources you're claiming are valid sources that people just don't like?
Please, people, take the time to read about what you're chiming in on before you vote for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read. Of course I read it. Can you try to WP:AGF please? It doesn't matter what you think of the reference. What matters is what it says - what we think of it can simply be reflected in the way we write the article (i.e., not treating the Macleans coverage as a statement of fact). FOARP (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the MacLean's article before I mentioned it here, you certainly couldn't have typed that it was, as you called it, "as reliable a source as they come" with a straight face. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maclean's, Canada's most respected magazine. Yes, I would call that as reliable a source as they come. And what you're doing is applying your own POV to what the source says. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on the Dingonek page, the Maclean's article is almost entirely a reprint of an article by Jordan (the Jordan that Bronson is repeating in In Closed Territory). Almost all of the scant sourcing thus depends upon primary reports by Jordan. --tronvillain (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a cryptozoologist. That must be the answer. FOARP (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have read and understood perfectly what's written. Perhaps you have perfect 20/20 vision in hindsight, but that isn't the case when people encounter anything new or hear new claims. For example, we have news the last couple of days about Fast radio burst which some physicists claim to be possible signs of alien intelligence. Perhaps in the future people will determine that the sources of FRBs are perfectly natural and there is nothing artificial about them, but we can't decide what is true for now. If a journal discusses possible alien intelligence it doesn't make the journal unreliable, nor does it make the physicists who suggested alien intelligence fringe. The same is true when when we have first reports of dingonek, and it doesn't make the journal that reported them unreliable. In this case we simply need independent sources that discuss the claim, not whether the claim is true or not. Hzh (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an early 20th century journal claims that a dinosaur may exist in the Lake Victoria region, we're in deep fringe territory. This becomes a primary source, and by no means could it be considered a reliable independent source. Unlike Mokele-mbembe or the Partridge Creek monster, we lack reliable independent sources discussing what's going on here, so the article simply echoes what these sources say without any independent discussion: The article promotes what is today very much a fringe theory. We don't consider early 20th century racial theory sources as reliable independent sources for the subjects they discuss today for the same reason. Imagine what this site would look like were this the case for the rest of the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation, and wrong. A wrong racial theory would still be a valid entry in Wikipedia, as would any other wrong theories that have been discussed. You are deciding arbitrarily what is RS or not. Hzh (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a racial theory with independent reliable sources, of course. A bunch of early 20th century sources on racial theory without an independent, modern academic source discussing them? Yeah, no, see this. Not reliable by any stretch, and that's exactly what we're seeing here. Actually, if your comments are indication on how you're operating on this site, I think someone might want to look into your edit history. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGE MATTERS applies here: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." These older sources, like many, would have been reliable at the time of publication but no longer reflect the current mainstream viewpoint. They may be useful for a quote or description of the outdated theory, but an article cannot be based solely on such sources. Articles on fringe topics do not simply describe the fringe theory; they also include the mainstream viewpoint for balance. I'm not sure how one would include the mainstream view if the topic is not covered by mainstream sources; this is one reason that our General Notability Guideline and WP:NFRINGE require coverage in reliable sources. Our guidelines do not make a special exception for fringe topics; if it's not covered by reliable sources, we don't include it here. –dlthewave☎ 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are deliberating misunderstanding what is being said or not, but no one has ever argued that dingonek existed, so you are using essentially spurious argument, and misunderstood what WP:AGE MATTERS is meant for. For a start, it is not meant for notability, and this discussion is not about whether the dingonek is real or not. Hzh (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, our notability guidelines require the use of reliable sources, and outdated sources are not reliable. There is no provision that allows unreliable sources to be used to establish notability. –dlthewave☎ 23:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have already said, your wrong interpretation. WP:AGE MATTERS does not say that older publications must be wrong, but that where newer and more accurate information are available, then the newer and more accurate sources should be used. You are making a lot of assumptions about the creature or the journals that reported it based on nothing but your own personal view. What we see here is a lot of misuse of guidelines and policies. Hzh (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not agree that credulous accounts currently represent a fringe view of the topic? –dlthewave☎ 16:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already dealt with this above (20/20 vision in hindsight) and gave you an example that might appear credulous in the future. Please understand what people are arguing so we don't have to explain to you repeatedly. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least, the intransigence and conduct unbecoming of an administrator exhibited here by Michig (talk·contribs) (including canvassing, badgering commentators, and personal attacks) is enough for me to think that maybe a trip to WP:AN is warranted to discuss a possible WP:DESYSOP. jps (talk) 19:52, 11 January 201l9 (UTC)
Well, if he hadn't pinged me and the other people who voted keep on the original AFD none of us would be here. Strangely enough, though, all but one of the delete votes knew this review was happening without being pinged. And if you really want to raise this kind of issue, then you should do so at WP:ANI and/or on the user concerned's talk page, not here in the discussion. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hope is that he sees the error of his ways and tones down and sometimes by outlining a possible course of action for an investigation, we can encourage reform. Most rational people do not want to go through more drama than necessary. jps (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the intent, but it's likely simply to be interpreted as a threat when posted here. Better on their talk page where it won't look like a rhetorical device. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intransigence? Conduct unbecoming of an administrator? canvassing? badgering commentators? personal attacks? You are accusing me of all these things? Based on what evidence exactly? --Michig (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in this very thread. If you don't see it, that may be a problem. jps (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the problem isn't mine. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. On the other hand, you are the one with the administrator tools and the community imprimatur, so it seems to me that you should be held to a higher standard than those you seem to relish impugning. jps (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we might all focus on the issue raised by user dlthewave above, because anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of this page. William Harris •(talk) • 01:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was clearly no consensus to delete, looking at the AfD. If anything, there was consensus to keep but whether it's a keep or no consensus is irrelevant so that's besides the point and not my hill to die on. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, the proponents of deletion have convincingly argued that the sources are not reliable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was not involved in the deletion discussion and don't edit in this area. Reading the deletion discussion, it seems to me there was clearly no consensus. If I judge the quality of the arguments, I would say there was !keep consensus. The !keep votes brought forward a number of sources establishing notability, including articles and books published by the East Africa Natural History Society, Maclean's, ABC-CLIO, and Routledge. The !delete votes seem to be based on two arguments: 1) some of those sources are old (which I don't think is a persuasive argument), and 2) some of those sources were written by cryptozoologists. The latter I also don't think is persuasive per the !endorse arguments above: our source of knowledge about Zeus comes from people who believed in Zeus; our source of knowledge about Jesus comes mainly from people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. A cryptozoologist might not be a reliable source for facts about cryptids, but they are sufficient to establish notability of a particular cryptid. If XXX is written about widely by cryptozoologists, then it is notable, and should have an article (of course the article should be clear that it's a cryptid, not a real creature, and that cryptozoology is like a hobby not a science). But those are all issues for the prose of the article; not reasons to delete it. Seems to me the closer correctly read the lack of consensus here. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the original AfD. Also I'll admit to having an interest in Cryptozoology, but I didn't cast my vote in the original AfD simply because of an interest in the subject, and I think my record as an editor of other non 'fringe' articles speaks to that. Might be a case of WP:AGF here, but I doubt the other keep voters made their vote purely out of love for the subject either Ryan shell (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete: the discussion did not apparently take WP:NFRINGE & WP:RS AGE, two key content guidelines, under proper advisement. The sources are primary and / or fringe and do not establish notability. There's nothing there that would be useful for a potential article, so instead of kicking the can down the road, we might as well delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The sources currently in the article are mainstream sources and are sufficient; there is no implication the animal actually exists.It meets the guidlines. WP covers notable nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cam we stop talking about users their motives, intelligence or competence. It adds nothing to the debate, and makes no ones case stronger. Can any such sub threads please be hated now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too late since this is already basically a re-hash of the AFD, which DRV is not supposed to be. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus can trump a guideline. That's always been policy: if local consensus couldn't do that, then DRV would be a lot easier than it is. But if local consensus does trump a guideline, then we're normally looking for quite a clear consensus with a lot of supporting reasoning. My view is that we should cover this cryptid somewhere but probably not in a separate article on its own. I think the simplest way to get there from here is probably to let this DRV close, allow the dust to settle for several weeks, and then start a talk page discussion about where it can be merged.—S MarshallT/C 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This is just a repeat of the same arguments. Not much to add beyond what the endorse !voters above said and what was said in the AfD itself. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have !voted delete at the Afd, but DRV is supposed to be about evaluating the closer's assessment of consensus, and the NC close clearly was well within a reasonable closer's discretion. While the discussion and policy would also have supported giving less weight to the keep votes and deleting the article, such a reading was not the only proper outcome. I'm not willing to buy off on the argument that the fringe sources can be used, but the argument that the old books (from well before the current vanity press era) constituted reliable sources was supported by a number of experienced editors, and I don't think the closer was compelled to ignore them. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 19:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Rhododendrites and Xymmax are exactly right. There was no consensus at the AfD, and the close reflected the result. We're not doing second AfD nominations at DRV. --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
