Talk:Albert Ostman

OR and Ref Improve tags
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)

Notability
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)
 * From the article "was a Canadian prospector who was supposedly abducted" as the main claim of fame. That is not automatically notable.  That is why the tag is there.  Neither Sasquatch or abduction (the two primary elements here) have been demonstrated to exist in any fashion, so the burden is upon the editors to make it clear as to why the individual is notable, as determined by verification by independent, reliable sources.  Because none of the references are web based, verification of notability is much more difficult and will take time.  As for the length of the article, that is not relevant for notability and not a reason why I tagged it.  Stubs are fine if the subject matter is clearly notable.  The best reference is the first, which is only a single mention in the book at the introduction, and not exactly significant coverage.  Tagging would appear to be less disruptive than assuming he isn't and going to AFD.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To add, if the event is notable (I would say it is borderline) then yes, the EVENT is notable, not the individual, as it was a single event. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An univolved view
 * This is not strictly a biography
 * The subject is notable for only  one event
 * The subject has not  had a significant  impact on  culture, society, or the way  people think
 * The article is well referenced
 * Conclusion: merge to Bigfoot with  redirect


 * The subject clearly meets the general notability guideline, having been covered by multiple independent third-party sources. Merging the article seems extreme. There is no reason not to have it under the name of the abductee, since something like "Alleged bigfoot abduction of Albert Osman" is more than a little ridiculous. Yworo (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the subject is mentioned in about 846 books listed at Google Books. The subject has clearly had a significant impact on the way people think about Bigfoot. How much more notable does he have to get? Yworo (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

More Info

 * When was this guy born? Where? When and where did he die? What jobs did he hold in his life? Did he ever marry and have kids? This article tells nothing about this guy except his encounter with bigfoot and how that has been received. There has to be more to this guy than just this. Most bio's I read here tell me something about the person's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.178.75 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Joe Nickell's opinion
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)