Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Fortean Zoology


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Centre for Fortean Zoology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Centre for Fortean Zoology is not a notable organization. It is run from Jonathan Downes backyard. Downes wrote this Wikipedia article himself as pure promotion and nearly all the sources on the article are primary sources from Downes himself. The article has struggled with reliable referencing for years. It's basically a promotion piece and lacks reliable in depth coverage from secondary sources. Jonathan Downes' article was recently deleted and I nominate that this article should be as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable fringe organization. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, per noms reasoning.  He  iro  22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom's reasoning.
 * Delete : Fails reliable sources. Sharath Abhivadyah  Talk Page 14:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – I won't mince words: this organization peddles pseudoscientific nonsense, and I would prefer it not be given a platform. However, this organization's expertise in baseless hooey has been cited a surprisingly massive number of times by reliable sources. For example, BBC News ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), The Guardian ([1], [2 (authored by the organization's director)], [3], [4]), ABC News (Australia) ([1], [2], [3]), Swissinfo ([1]), IGN ([1 (after the organization partnered with Capcom of all things], [2]), The Times ([1], [2]), The Daily Telegraph ([1], [2], [3], [4]), CBC News [1], the National Post ([1]), Al.com ([1]), The Independent ([1]). Essentially, while I hate that this organization is notable, they are clearly notable. If anything, I believe based on performing WP:BEFORE for this organization the article Jonathan Downes was wrongfully deleted. At the very least, however, as this discussion is currently heavily leaning Delete, this should be a redirect to the article 'Cryptozoology', as the article's 11,000+ page views over the last two years and the amount of reliable sources that cite them indicate this is a plausible search term. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that "Downes authored this article himself" is misleading at best: Downes created the article back in 2005, but this was his only contribution, and critically, literally no aspect about our current article is the same. This is akin to saying that an IP editor wrote our article on Barack Obama.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking through these, I note that nearly every one of these simply just briefly refers to Downes as the leader of the Centre and otherwise presents Downes and the group as experts rather than pseudoscience proponents. Of course, in reality, this is a fringe group (WP:Fringe, WP:Pseudoscience) that needs reliable and notable secondary coverage that describes them accurately. So far each one of these sources are simply promoting the organization (and so we have to keep WP:PROFRINGE in mind). Some of these items are blatantly promoting the organization, like this 2008 BBC report that links readers out to the Centre's site without comment. (Media uncritically parroting pseudoscientific claims from cryptozoology circles is nothing new—we even have a little section on it over at our cryptozoology article).)


 * Do you have any sources from academics or other reliable sources discussing the group's history and/or pseudoscientific and/or fringe context? The organization is by no means a reliable source about itself. The above sources, troublingly, simply parrot the group's presentation of itself as a group of experts. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment BBC News are not reliable for paranormal claims nor are the Telegraph or other news outlets. They write sensationalist articles without critical coverage, they are not neutral or reliable sources. People are attracted to the unknown and they play on that. There seems to be no academic sources that mention this organization. I can assure you Downes did write this article himself I was not wrong about that. Downes was fooling around on sock-puppets for years. The mass content on the article was written by Lazarusx who has admitted on the talk-page to being Downes "I am indeed Jon Downes". So Downes had two accounts Jondownes and Lazarusx. Downes had another sock BillPetrovic. Richard Freeman has also had about 4 Wikipedia accounts Doctor3uk, Tallowghast etc. It is all promotional editing that happened years ago and conflict of interest. It's quite clear to me the article should be flushed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are clearly multiple independent sources. We dont delete articles about organisations just because they peddle nonsense. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you've got a reliable source discussing the history and sturcture of this fringe organization rather than the various blurbs promoting it above, I think we'd all like to see it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, especially the bit about about lacking in depth coverage from reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Passing, uncritical mentions aren't the same thing as in-depth coverage. Quoting somebody affiliated with the Centre isn't reporting on the history, organization and activities of the Centre; being the source for the token "the Yeti could still be out there" sound bite fails to meet WP:NORG. Add that to the COI/sockpuppet concerns, and it's pretty plain that we're better off without this article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the various mentions listed above are just that, mentions: mentions of the centre and their bizarre cryptid-related claims. I see no in-depth coverage of the organisation itself, which would lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Even putting WP:FRINGE aside, there's very little here to show notability, and I think our standards should be even higher for organisations that push pseudoscientific woo. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 13:16, 6 April 2021 (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.