The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - WP:SNOW applies here, so it would be best to end this. The single 'keep' argument can be discounted by virtue of the overwhelming consensus that the source provided is not reliable or independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahool[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ahool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A number of pseudoscientific sources are being cited, but no WP:FRIND sources are apparently available to objectively describe this WP:FRINGE subject -- a supposedly 10 foot tall wingspan bat. As a result, article has been padded out with speculative WP:OR. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like XOR'easter took care of it already. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)#[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rest of us can't find a single instance of this, care to provide an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simon and Schuster 91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a publisher. What is it you are referring to that was published by this publisher? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the references in the article.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, And Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature, but that's absolutely not a reliable source independent of the subject, and even if it was, wouldn't establish notability. --tronvillain (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely a reliable source for what it is being used to cite. Good look finding any "independent" source on this topic. All either are pro-Cryptozoology or anti-Cryptozoology. Independent is not necessary to establish notability.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well played sir. Have a towel. + + + hands towel + + + -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the definition of "independent" used in the link you have provided those sources are independent.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NFRINGE, "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." Coleman could not possibly be more of a promoter/popularizer, and a few paragraphs repeating the primary source is not extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what those words mean. A popularizer is someone who originally made something popular and a promulgator is the originator of something.91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure IP, sure. It doesn't matter anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That response really says it all doesn't it?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it doesn't constitute extensive coverage, so it doesn't matter whether or not he's a popularize/promulgator? I'm not sure you've looked up the definitions of those words recently though. --tronvillain (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that one source constituted that?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Promulgator" does not mean the originator of something. There are literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of dictionaries available on the very internet you're arguing on: please use one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More