Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#1589226719
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3|May 3]]=
==Aseka-moke==
==Black Demon Shark==
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete.
- {{no redirect|1 = Black Demon Shark }} → :List of cryptids#Aquatic or semi-aquatic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Demon_Shark&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-04-03&end=2020-05-02&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Black_Demon_Shark stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Black Demon Shark|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Black Demon Shark closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Black Demon Shark|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Black Demon Shark closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Black Demon Shark|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Black Demon Shark closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Wikipedia has no content about "Black Demon Shark". Delete, possibly WP:MADEUP. Hog Farm (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
: Keep It's not made up, WP:RS have been provided for it. The information [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&diff=860390384&oldid=860389948 used to be present] at the article to which it redirects, that is List of cryptids, but then someone else removed the information. Leo1pard (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Leo1pard}}: The linked revision does not mention this cryptid. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|LaundryPizza03}} That's because an inconsiderate user, who did not bother to check given references like [https://books.google.com/books?id=nQVS9EDmfhQC&dq this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&diff=954847690&oldid=954844486 removed the content], with the excuse that it is WP:SYNTH, when it is not, and this isn't the first time that I've seen someone say 'WP:SYNTH', even if appropriate references are given, but anyways, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&diff=next&oldid=954847690 partially restored the content], using that book. Leo1pard (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::: {{user|Bloodofox}} should have split the entry instead of deleting the whole thing. Keep as it is now mentioned with a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::This book briefly mentions that rumors about an entity existed in an area before being cleared up. That appears to be all there was to it. To be clear, the book makes absolutely no mention of the words "cryptid" or "cryptozoology" (really, enough is enough with the WP:SYNTH on WP:Pseudoscience topics in these circles). We still lack reliable sources that establish notability for this topic—not every critter someone misidentifies meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Answer given below. You should thoroughly check sources before crying out 'WP:SYNTH' or that reliable sources don't exist. Leo1pard (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless a mention is restored, but this is also miscapitalised. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
: {{u|Shhhnotsoloud}} If you didn't see it mentioned over there, then that's because an inconsiderate user, who did not bother to check given references like [https://books.google.com/books?id=nQVS9EDmfhQC&dq this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&diff=954847690&oldid=954844486 removed the content], with the excuse that it is WP:SYNTH, when it is not, and this isn't the first time that I've seen someone say 'WP:SYNTH', even if appropriate references are given, but anyways, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&diff=next&oldid=954847690 partially restored the content], using that book. Leo1pard (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::I checked the book. It doesn't mention anything whatsoever about the subculture, not even the words "cryptid" or "cryptozoology". Review WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SYNTH. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, no reliable secondary sources discussing this topic. Pseudoscience topics require reliable secondary sources discussing them in context. {{ping|Leo1pard}} is pushing the usual stuff we see in these circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Bloodofox}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=b9lLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&dq=black+demon+shark&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn7cm_65rpAhUP3BoKHVn1A-EQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=cryptid&f=false This one does], so maybe next time you should go about checking sources before saying that someone else is 'pushing' this and that, or that "no reliable secondary sources" discuss what you WP:Don't like. Leo1pard (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Good to have some more coverage. That said, this coverage all stems from a single episode of Monsterquest, an infamous promoter of cryptozoology (Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Does a single episode of Monsterquest make something notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion? I don't think so, which is why my vote for delete remains. We're well in deep WP:FRINGE waters here, and the usual 'you just don't like it!' attacks lobbed from adherents aren't likely to ripple the waters much for inclusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
: {{u|Bloodofox}} Monsterquest isn't the only source for the Black Demon, as shown in [https://books.google.com/books?id=egBMswEACAAJ&dq=black+demon+megalodon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ697m-5vpAhUECxoKHTrJD5UQ6AEISTAE Mexico Unexplained], which says that some cryptozoologists said that the Black Demon Shark may be a Megalodon, considering that the description of the Black Demon essentially fits that of Megalodon (with teeth {{convert|7|in|m|abbr=off}} long, and a body about {{convert|35|ft|m|abbr=on}} long on average), but some fishermen said that it may even be larger than Megalodon! Leo1pard (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC); edited 05:41, 5 May 2020 (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.