| Revision as of 14:04, 10 January 2019 editWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits // Edit via Wikiplus/Overturn← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:06, 10 January 2019 edit undoWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits // Edit via Wikiplus/CENext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''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. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | *'''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. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn and delete''' Horrible close from someone, who days back was about |
*'''Overturn and delete''' Horrible close from someone, who days back was 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.]] 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:06, 10 January 2019
< 2019 January 8 Deletion review archives: 2019 January 2019 January 10 >9 January 2019
Dingonek
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)
- 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)
- "Delete". I feel that the "Keep" !votes contradict the WP:FRINGE
policyguideline. –dlthewave ☎ 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Delete". I feel that the "Keep" !votes contradict the WP:FRINGE
- 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)
- 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)
- Overturn and delete. Strongly in agreement with discussion above. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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. SportingFlyer talk 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.∯WBG 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)