This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has Original Research and Ref Improve Tags. Which statement may be original research, and which statement needs a reference? Please be specific. Thanks. Plazak ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather than an edit war, let's have a Talk Page discussion on notbility. I would vote for notability, although perhaps under the title
Albert Ostman incident, because it is the alleged abduction that is notable, rather than the man himself. The Ostman incident appears to have been considered notable enough to be discussed by a number of pubished writers, both pro and con. This article is shorter than I would ordinarily like to see for a stand-alone article, but it appears to me to be too long to put in its entirity into the list of alleged sightings in the
Bigfoot article. Thoughts?
Plazak (
talk)
19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly fair to put a notability tag on this article. But it is not quite good faith to do so without being willing to discuss the matter here. Please discuss. Plazak ( talk) 15:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The article quotes the opinion of the well-known skeptical investigator and writer Joe Nickell. But why is his opinion notable, more than, say, yours, or mine, or anyone's? He is not an expert in the biology of primates. It might be informative to detail the reasons he sees for doubting the Ostman story, but to just cite his opinion without the reasoning behind it is an argument from authority by a person who is not even an authority. Regards. Plazak ( talk) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has Original Research and Ref Improve Tags. Which statement may be original research, and which statement needs a reference? Please be specific. Thanks. Plazak ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather than an edit war, let's have a Talk Page discussion on notbility. I would vote for notability, although perhaps under the title
Albert Ostman incident, because it is the alleged abduction that is notable, rather than the man himself. The Ostman incident appears to have been considered notable enough to be discussed by a number of pubished writers, both pro and con. This article is shorter than I would ordinarily like to see for a stand-alone article, but it appears to me to be too long to put in its entirity into the list of alleged sightings in the
Bigfoot article. Thoughts?
Plazak (
talk)
19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly fair to put a notability tag on this article. But it is not quite good faith to do so without being willing to discuss the matter here. Please discuss. Plazak ( talk) 15:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The article quotes the opinion of the well-known skeptical investigator and writer Joe Nickell. But why is his opinion notable, more than, say, yours, or mine, or anyone's? He is not an expert in the biology of primates. It might be informative to detail the reasons he sees for doubting the Ostman story, but to just cite his opinion without the reasoning behind it is an argument from authority by a person who is not even an authority. Regards. Plazak ( talk) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)