Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod (cryptozoology and ufology)

:{{la|Rod (cryptozoology and ufology)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod (cryptozoology and ufology)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Rod (cryptozoology and ufology)}})

Questionable sourcing at best — self published "sightings" and nothing more, except an opinion piece from About.com, an episode of a TV show, and a bunch of otherwise SPSes. Has this crap really hung around since way the heck back in 2002? That's the stone age in Wikipedia terms. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - This bit of cryptozoology has become relevant through its coverage on TV and on the Internet. The SPSes here are used not as a source of true information about "rods", rather, they are used as sources of information about themselves, in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. The descriptions of the attempts at debunking of interpretations of rods as something other than camera artifacts is useful and is a good example of criticism of extraordinary claims. Gary (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- I'm actually pretty amazed that this would get nominated. This is a well known "phenomena" covered in newspapers, magazines, books, tv and just about every other source you could imagine. It's not exactly a poorly written article as it is better than the majority of wikipedia articles and it even has a relevant picture that I assume was uploaded just for this page. The sourcing, which could use improvement, is still better than the majority of short Wikipedia articles. So yeah, I have no idea where the nominating editor is coming from. BrendanFrye (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Uh, maybe that it's been tagged for having inappropriate sources since 2008, and I couldn't find any decent ones on my own? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

::Um, by 2008 do you mean September 2009, that's quite a ways away from 2008? Also, it's not like there are no sources, it's just that the sources aren't as good as they are in other articles. Well this is an article about cryptozoology, the sources aren't going to be as well respected as say, an article on the Large Hadron Collider. I could point you to a dozen articles on my watchlist that are much, much worse than this. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

:::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is basically what you're saying. The fact that "worse articles exist" is totally immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Ok, that wasn't everything I said and it certainly wasn't the crux of my argument. Also, where did you get that quote from? I'll try again, it's not like there are no sources, it's just that the sources aren't as good as they are in other articles. Well this is an article about cryptozoology, the sources aren't going to be as well respected as say, an article on the Large Hadron Collider. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'll cite policy as well, "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

::::::Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." BrendanFrye (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a notable topic since it has been covered in mainstream sources. Article could be improved but even as it is it gives good information. Borock (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and Trim - The Straight Dope is a WP:RS, if I recall correctly. Parity yes, but so many unreliable sources saying the same thing aren't needed. Trim it down to one or two, at most. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - yes, it's crap, but it's notable crap. The Straight Dope is reliable, as is The Sun. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

::Regardless of whether The Sun is reliable, I have rewritten that sentence and changed the source to the original video from the BBC. Gary (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Bearian said it: it's crap, but it's notable crap. Antichris (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - notability is substantial, and more than enough to justify keeping. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.