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 draftify. After the lengthy discussion, it is decided to work on the article at draft:Buru (legendary creature). The nomination has been withdrawn by nominator in favour of move to draft-space, and move performed by User:EricR. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Buru (legendary creature)

Buru (legendary creature) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not discussed in reliable scientific sources. The article is unsourced, and any attention it gets is mostly from fringe sources. There's not enough reliable coverage about this subject to create an article without giving extremely undue weight to fringe material. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is a classic example of cryptozoologists taking a local legend seriously and promoting it as a real creature. Unfortunately neither the legend (if it existed at all) nor the purported species have received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. – dlthewave ☎ 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - I'm willing to give folks a chance to rewrite this, based on recently suggested sources. – dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. Can see significant coverage in reliable sources such as journal by IOSR and IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia. [1] Then there is a whole book dedicated to this subject called "The Hunt for the Buru: The True Story of the Search for a Prehistoric Reptile in North India" [2] by Ralph Izzard. Significant coverage is also found in other sources like [3]. UNESCO also made a mention [4]. These are all reliable sources.  MehrajMir  (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

N IOSR-JHSS appears to be a reliable journal that devotes a few sentences to the legend. See Arjayay's analysis below.

N Izzard appears to be a primary source about an unsuccessful 1948 expedition in search of Buru. These expedition reports, especially historical ones, usually requiry secondary analysis. Unclear to what extent or how reliably it covers the legend. Mehrajmir13, have you read it?

N Monster Dot-To-Dot is a children's coloring book.

Y UNESCO appears reliable and has a few sentences on the Buru legend.

We have two solid sources, however they don't have anywhere near enough content to meet WP:SIGCOV or write an article. I'm not convinced that a trip report from 1948 is going to have anything useful beyond a few quotes. – dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: IOSR Journals is a predatory publisher, not a reliable source. As for the claim that "IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia" this totally untrue - the current uses of IOSR on Wikipedia can be seen here [0,4,100} - 55 spam reports and this AFD discussion - not one article whatsoever. - Arjayay ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Good catch Arjayay. FWIW Mehrajmir13's list shows 40 or so uses that slipped under the radar because they don't have a URL, however this does not speak to its reliability. – dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. The article had some sources but in the previous versions. [5] Subject meets WP:GNG. Tessaracter ( talk) 06:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sources present in the previous version were removed because they're written by fringe authors:

N Bernard Heuvelmans is a prominent figure in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology.

N Karl Shuker is another cryptozoologist.

N The Cryptid Zoo (in External Links) is a run-of-the-mill online "cryptid compendium" with no indication of fact-checking, accuracy or expertise. Besides citing fringe writers Coleman and Shuker, it also cites Wikipedia, making it completely unuseable. – dlthewave ☎ 14:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per analysis above, sources are in passing and / or fringe. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Can I just point out what a nonsense it is to argue that a legendary creature is not notable because it isn't covered by scientific sources. -- Michig ( talk) 07:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Its just stoopid. There are sources, UN sorces, and this article isnt advert or promotional, and doesnt spread any rumours or misunderstandings. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and WP:IAR? This is a legend from history so the sources are obviously going to be scarce. But we are an encyclopaedia, we must not create articles about such subjects. Lets create articles on pets of celebrities, or which celebrity pissed on who. Afterall thats the spirit of wikipedia the encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Michig. It is nonsensical to expect scientists to write about this Cryptozoology-related subject. Nonetheless, what about this from high quality publisher Psychology Press by Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf? This source meets WP:SIGCOV as well. Harmanprtjhj ( talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article could pass WP:GNG as either a creature or as a legend. When scientific sources are referenced, that is about determining whether or not Buru can pass as a creature, which it does not appear to. As a legend, the sources are about three paragraphs in your book, which is a solid source, and a short reference by UNESCO. I'm not convinced that those two by themselves are enough to pass GNG. Hog Farm ( talk) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Izzard, Ralph (1951). The hunt for the Buru. this one is looking legendary. oops, already mentioned above, but i came across it in the bibliography for a work on the Apatani language.— eric 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Blackburn, S. H. (2008). Himalayan tribal tales: Oral tradition and culture in the Apatani Valley. Brill. confirms myth and mentions Izzard.— eric 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep reliably sourced foundation myth. The content may be more appropriate in other articles with this a redirectDAB.— eric 15:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • confluence of two notable topics, the myth, and Izzard's expedition which was sponsored by both the Daily Mail and Mountbatten. Hog Farm, Dlthewave, Roxy the dog, K.e.coffman, Arjayay

Keep but Edit. The article doesn't violate any major WP guidelines, but it is pretty much a stub. If it stays, it needs to have more information and have sources. If it's not edited within a specified time frame, then come back to this page and delete it. Dictator Black ( talk) 03:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The lack of sourcing does actually violate our Verifiability policy. Could you suggest any sources that might be used to add more information? It's already been at AfD for a week which is the standard time period we allow for article improvement. – dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I have yet to see a single reliable source discussing this topic, just the usual fringe proponent circles. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Keep, Eric in particular has dug up reliable sources to replace the fringe—looks like the article might be saved after all! :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Stuart Blackburn SOAS University of London. Several published works on oral history of the Apatani. Not a reliable source? Fringe proponent? Care to reconsider?— eric 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ EricR: Have you linked one of the articles Blackburn wrote about the Buru? I went to the Blackburn link above, went to the article on the Blackburn page, and went through the article and could only find one mention of "buru" and that mention was in somebody' name. So can you please link to the articles by Blackburn so they can be analyzed? Hog Farm ( talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I found the book linked by EricR earlier and found references to the creature under the name "bura" on two pages on the book. I can't tell if the mentions, in the description of a local myth, are enough to meet SIG-COV or not, though, especially since the UNESCO source literally mentions "buru" in about 2-3 sentences. Hog Farm ( talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Jesus fucking christ.
        • Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1962). The Apa Tanis and their neighbours. pp. 12–13, 62–3.
        • Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1980). A Himalayan Tribe: From Cattle to Cash. pp. 12–13.
        • Beggiora, S (2018). "The Mystery of the buru: From Indigenous Ontology to Post-modern Fairy Tale". International Quarterly for Asian Studies.
        • Blackburn, S (2012). "Apatani Ideas and Idioms of Origins". Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas.
        • Farooqy, P (2017). "Symbiosis Between Nature & Culture–A Case Study of the Apatani Cultural Landscape, India". Journal of World Heritage.
      • — eric 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
        • • Eric, as you appear to have access to these items, please provide some passages with which to expand and de-fringe this article. I'd be happy to change my vote if we have material to work with here, and it sounds like we may indeed. :bloodofox: ( talk) 04:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
            • (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1962) you can borrow, (Beggiora, 2018), (Hubert and Blackburn, 2012) at acedimia.edu, (Farooqy, 207) is just a passing mention but calls it well-known. (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1980) all i can get is the snippet view.— eric 04:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply
              • If someone can draw enough to build a new article from these sources, then I will change my vote. If not, then there doesn't appear to be enough out there. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Would creating a new section at Apatani people about their folklore and including the information there be acceptable? Hog Farm ( talk) 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Having looked at the sources here I feel that there may be an arguable case for keeping a very short paragraph about this cryptid but on balance, the outcome I would prefer is a very selective merge to list of cryptids where it's already mentioned. We would need to edit Buru (disambiguation) accordingly. — S Marshall  T/ C 15:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a "cryptid", it a well known and documented legend of the Apatani. Did you read Beggiora? Here is a quick introduction to myth within anthropology. I guess gaming magazines and Rich at IGN are more Wikipedia's speed.— eric 16:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ EricR:I'm still not convinced this warrants a separate article. But after the sources that have come up, I would support a merge to Apatani people if a new section about Apatani folklore is formed. Would that be acceptable to you? Hog Farm ( talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
      • @ Hog Farm: I would hesitate to merge to Apatani people. It is a very short article, includes very little about their history and nothing about other myths. It doesn't seem like there are many editors interested in the topic to clean up the text. Adding a whole bunch about a legend with Stonor and Izzard wandering around looking for a dinosaur seems pretty WP:UNDUE. A better merge target would be Ralph Izzard, where looking for Yeti and swamp monsters is appropriate content. We should neutrally describe both the real myth and the nutty expedition which tried to make it a real creature. I lean towards cleaning up the existing article, or WP:TNT. Merge to Ralph Izzard would be workable, but merging to Apatani i think would create a bigger mess than there is now.— eric 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
        • I understand "cryptid" to mean an animal that hasn't been shown to exist. If that's wrong then the mention in List of cryptids will need amending.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Re. whether this is a cryptid - The problem is, these things can exist for centuries as local legends, with (as long as sufficient evidence of significance exists) no problem for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a myth/folklore topic. But then cryptozoologists get interested in them, and suddenly they become (in some people's eyes) 'cryptids', and people try to get them deleted because they hate cryptozoology as a pseudoscience (i.e. not a proper science) and argue that they should be deleted because they are not proven to exist by science (i.e. proper science), which is both obvious (otherwise pseudoscience wouldn't be interested in them) and ridiculous at the same time. -- Michig ( talk) 08:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Such a merge will not work as the list has long only been about notable cryptids, thus is merged it will just be removed as not notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is incorrect. We write about cryptozoologist interest when there's notable coverage in reliable secondary sources. We do not, however, use fringe sources. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep but heavy re-working is needed. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rework as a legendary creature. Scientific sources are not needed for myths.-- Auric talk 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

As an editor who has worked on thousands of myth-related articles on Wikipedia over the past few decades, I have along the way encountered everyone from Young Earth creationists to Neo-Nazis intending to use fringe sources promote their views in these spaces. In short, I can say that your take on our myth coverage is categorically false. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

How so?-- Auric talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

All sources must meet WP:RS, and folklore topics (including myth) are no exception. This means academics with relevant backgrounds, such as folklorists and philologists, rather than Young Earth creationist Tim's evangelical cryptozoology emporium on the internet, self-proclaimed monster-hunter Max's Facebook page (gotta catch 'em all), or "Adolf Messerschmidt"'s self-published books on how (your ethnic group of choice) in fact consists of "reptilians" controlling world politics. Since the project lacked folklorists from an early date, fringe sources have been a problem for a long time in these Wikipedia circles. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep It seems that the currently used source is acceptable and Eric convinced me that other good sources exist. That said, the article needs work and some sources are difficult to access, unfortunately. — Paleo Neonate – 05:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note for closing admin There's a discussion about moving this and similar articles to draft space to work on them. I don't think anyone would object.— eric 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm willing to withdraw this if the article is moved to the draft space temporarily for improvement. Hog Farm ( talk) 01:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • done, and db-r2 on the redirect.— eric 03:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Nomination withdrawn Per the guide to non-admin closures, I can't close the AfD, because there is still one standing !vote to delete. User:Roxy the dog, as the only remaining !vote to delete, would you find a move to the draft space acceptable? Hog Farm ( talk) 03:40, 5 January 2020 (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.