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. Tone 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ropen

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

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

Fringe and psuedoscientific rubbish backed by fringe and psuedoscientific sources. Article fails GNG, V and common bloody sense. Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete it; all sources are seemingly from the personal websites of the author of the vanity press Searching for Ropens and Finding God book. There are many different domains, but the sites within are all the same. There are few to no additional sources to establish notability / non-rubbishness. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 22:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete; it's the personal theory of one guy with a bunch of sock puppets, and nothing else that can be cited as ‘evidence’. -- Qef ( talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, pure rubbish. Get rid of it please. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Calling this rubbish is an insult to rubbish. Flush twice and close the lid so it can never crawl out again. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing found in non-fringe sources, not even mention of it as a legend. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The idea of the Ropen is a famous Young Earth Creationist meme. Hell, there was even an episode of Destination Truth where they went hunting for it. Abyssal ( talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Coverage from reliable sources? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure there is any to be honest. Histories of creationism (I've heard of a book called "The Creationists" that might mention it) or histories of the interaction between paleontology and popular culture might be useful sources, but I don't have access to any. Maybe some news venues published puff pieces when the ropen-hunting expeditions happened? It would be a shame for such a famous cryptid to not have an article here just because PZ Myers complained about it on his blog the other day (yeah, I read Pharyngula too, occasionally). Abyssal ( talk) 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• If we apply the WP:FRIND razor to the article, are the contents of the Destination Truth episode all that's left? I think List of Destination Truth episodes is sufficient to contain that. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nor IMHO is Destination Truth which is pretty fringe. And our standard is in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 09:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete For failing WP:N. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Pure self-promotion and OR, backed up by sockpuppetry. 79.68.70.197 ( talk) 01:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This theory dreams of achieving the stratospheric heights of plausibility (and, more importantly, mountains of supporting evidence) enjoyed by Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Elvis still being alive, and/or Elvis having been the real guy who shot JFK. Groyolo ( talk) 11:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I laughed, but the quality of the theory has no bearing on whether or not it warrants an article. Abyssal ( talk) 13:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of notability in reliable sources. Something portrayed on a single episode of a TV show? Some very non RS nonsense, no meat for an article here. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sign of sig coverage in RS. Fails WP:NFRINGE. I've heard my fair share of the claims of creationists, but I've never heard about this, Second Quantization ( talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as too fringey to have been commented on by reliable sources. Unless, of course, we accept www.laattorneyvideo.com, which does come with a kind of endorsement: "This site is supported by the Whitcomb Family Daycare: Quality childcare in Long Beach, California". Drmies ( talk) 22:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • See my comment below: I'm on the fence and encourage other editors to judge the TIME and Smithsonian articles. Drmies ( talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fringe nonsense, with no coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Starting to look like an edit war. The topic is important enough to cover on smithsonian http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/?no-ist and and Time magazine http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1916160_1916151_1916146,00.html. I think it just needs some edits without the edit war to be viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyrymn ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm--not bad. Not bad at all. The TIME article isn't much of an article, though, but it does suggest that there may be more good material to be found--in fact, I'll adjust my comment and will go sit on the fence for now. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • See, I told you guys there'd be a few sources like this. :P Abyssal ( talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - having read the sources provided above. My issue with the Smithsonian source is that it basically dismisses any related story as a hoax and refutes a couple of specific claims. The TIME source hedges its bets and notes that some have claimed they exist. I'm not sure those two articles are enough to substantiate notability, though. The TIME source isn't particularly substantive and the substantive part of the Smithsonian sources is, "this doesn't exist". Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too, but I don't think there's enough there yet. Happy to consider anything else. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 04:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia covers lots of fictional, mythical, and folkloric subjects. What does whether or not it exists have to do with whether or not we should have an article about it? Abyssal ( talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• My comment wasn't very long but I think you missed the bit at the end - "Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too". Of course they can and I've written about quite a few of those mythological things. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 22:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Smithsonian article doesn't really tell us anything about the Ropen myth - it basically just states that the supposed Video is a frigate bird, not a pterosaur, and that if there were surviving pterosaurs, we don't know what they would look like. Time tells us even less. I'm less than convinced that if we were to remove the obviously unreliable sources from the existing article (e.g. laattorneyvideo.com, objectiveness.com, livepterosaur.com, cryptozoology.com) there would be enough material to support an article. Part of the problem is that there seems to be not one myth, but two - the lumenous flying creature of Papua New Guinea, and the 'pterosaur'. Any proper discussion of the topic would need to distinguish between the two, rather than simply taking the word of the cryptozoologists that they are one and the same. Malevolent nocturnal flying creatures are a common theme in mythology, and the Ropen of Papua New Guinean discourse needs to be discussed in that context, rather than appropriated by Western pseudoscience for its own purposes. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• For what its worth, I was looking at this list and think the remainder also need similar treatment. Before PZ does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids (It feels like this article was singled out due to PZ making a stink about it). I think the original author has given up trying to make the article here work. Thyrymn ( talk) 03:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails to make it even as a noteworthy bit of crankery - David Gerard ( talk) 12:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or make it like the article on Black Shuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhb ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - if the article were about the crank view (as a crank) and its believers, then I'd vote to keep, but its present form is an article with no credible sources purporting to treat the crank view as credible. — Safety Cap ( talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (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.