Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gambo (carcass)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject has received coverage in fringe sources only; there are no reliable sources available to meet GNG or support a balanced article. Previous AfD failed to actually evaluate the sources present at the time. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Participants in the 2018 AfD do not appear to have actually evaluated the sources present at that time. Comments such as "AGF for the in-print sources" and "without checking the pages of each cited book there is no reason to believe they are insignificant" indicate that the sources were not actually checked for reliability and simply assumed to be sufficient. Here are the sources present in 2018: All three books are written from a fringe cryptozoological perspective, promoting theories that the carcass was an unknown species of whale or a surviving plesiosaur. Per WP:NFRINGE, the "proclamations of its adherents" cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject. In this case, there appears to be little to no mainstream coverage, therefore it fails GNG. The two external links  share the same fringe POV as the books. –dlthewave ☎ 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are Giants in the Sea. Bright, Michael. Robson Books, London, 1989.
 * In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Shuker, Karl P.N. Blandford, London, 1995.
 * The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep. Coleman, Loren and Huyghe, Patrick. Jeremy P. Tarcher Publishing. November, 2003
 * Keep Filleting the article immediately before AfD (see this version) is a sheer bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD. This appears to be one of several. ANI to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Gambo which should have been listed here. AfD by the same nominator a year ago, closed as keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing the previous AfD. Twinkle normally lists previous discussions automatically, but apparently the recent page move interfered. –dlthewave ☎ 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you should have checked that it was here before leaving the AfD. After all, it was your nomination – we can't believe you don't remember trying to delete it before. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Its also found in Gambo: The Beaked Beast of Bungalow Beach," Fortean Times (No. 67, Feb.-March 1993), pp. 35-37. So enough sources to justify its existence in the previous form. I agree its wrong to erase the article, reducing it to just one sentence then sending it to AFD.  It should've been nominated in its original state.   D r e a m Focus  21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fortean Times is a fringe publication and cannot be used to establish notability. Have you found any sources that could be used to write an article based on a mainstream scientific viewpoint? –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't much matter what's used as a source, if the nominator strips them all out right before the AfD anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * delete keep as per the above, previous afd and comments, bit of a car crash nomination tbh. Update, there is nothing left to support now. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which specific comments do you find compelling? There is not a single keep !vote in this AfD or the previous one that actually assess the quality of the print sources which I listed above; all of them either "assume good faith" that they are reliable or are based on purported procedural issues that do not concern the notability of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This cryptid appears to totally fail WP:NFRINGE. The only cite that was in the article was the Gizmodo article reviewing the book Cryptozoologicon, and that's a self-published book. Doesn't contribute to notability. Everything else listed here and that I can find searching is a fringe source; can't be used. There appears to literally not be a single reliable source upon which we can base an article. I don't think a policy-compliant version is possible. – Levivich 03:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources that have been removed are even remotely WP:RS and no source suggested in the earlier AfD or this one have any hope of reversing that. There is no way this satisfies WP:SIGCOV and the chances of it doing so in the future are remote. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Gambo is also mentioned in Hidden Animals by Michael Newton. Google Books and Amazon Paisarepa (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also an article with a section about Gambo in Strange Magazine #15, Spring 1995, though it's referred to as 'The Gambian Sea Serpent' there. The previous AfD also mentioned "Anon. 1997. In search of Gambo. Animals & Men 14, 11-13." and "Downes, J. 1997. Mission Impossible: the search for ‘Gambo’. Uri Geller’s Encounters 9, 50-53." from the blog of a paleozoologist who wrote about Gambo (http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/gambo-rides-again-beaked-beast-of.html). The blog post also lists several other sources (some may pertain to Gumbo, some may not) that may be worth taking a look at. Paisarepa (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Darren Naish seems to have a book that is partly about Gambo, if the title is too be believed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure any of those are RS. – Levivich 06:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also this article (in German). No idea how reliable kryptozoologie-online.de is.
 * I'll note that it's not just nearly blanking the article immediately before the AfD that looks bad; so does removing nearly all sources just hours after the last one closed as 'keep'. Consensus (right or wrong) in that AfD was that the sources were reasonable. Nom, how did you determine the print sources were unreliable? Paisarepa (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I came here from ANI and did a before search. There's not a reliable source within 100km of this article, even looking at its history. (I will add removing unsourced content a day before opening an AfD isn't great optics even if it's technically acceptable.) SportingFlyer  T · C  06:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I found this via ANI as well. Like the previous commenters, I don't believe the sources are suitable. The Fortean Times and a self published book just don't cut it, and I haven't been able to find anything better myself. Reyk YO! 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources in any version of the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing resembling an actual reliable source is present anywhere in this discussion, nor in the previous version of the article linked to by Andy Dingley. Andy's attacks on the good faith of the nominator are as unwelcome as his determination to keep poor quality content referenced to poor quality sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not reliably sourced. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient sources to even smerge. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak DeleteWhilst I find the removing of the only source then AFDing dodgy the source was poor.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the books/sites were reliable - which is doubtful - since there was never any evidence of the carcass, all they can do is speculate. Effectively, let's face it, this is an article based on one person's testimony and a few fringe sources repeating it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Reviewing the sources that were there, AND going a good-faith search for other sources, I can't say that there is enough material to support an article.  -- Jayron 32 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article honestly resembles a hoax or a cryptozoologist prank rather than a genuine attempt at scientific rigor. If there were reliable sources talking about this I would say 'keep' but there aren't. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't seen mentioned yet.&mdash;eric 21:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Relist Eberhart looks reliable in this case. There is significant coverage in at least one reliable independent source, but it's not a secondary source, it's a catalogue of about a thousand of these beasties. Considering WP:NOTPAPER and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is there enough for an article. This isn't addressed above.&mdash;eric 23:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cryptozoologists such as Eberhart are not reliable sources; Mysterious Creatures credulously repeats the fringe theory that the carcass may have been a surviving plesiosaur. Since this is the only type of source available, how would one go about writing an NPOV article? –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A bio in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series a review in New Scientist(preview, and not a very trustworthy publication itself), and blurb in Skeptical Inquirer which probably sums things up fairly accurately: entries are fairly objective, and list the best explanations for the sightings. The criteria for inclusion as a "mysterious creature" are perhaps too liberal. Google Scholar: to pick through citations. Every source has caveats and limitations, but as a catalogue and bibliography looks usable.&mdash;eric 07:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, or if you absolutely must, redirect to globster; then do the same with most or all of the other globster articles that read in essence "a whale carcase washed up on the beach; it turned out to be a whale carcase". NB it's not a "cryptid", it's a dead whale. Here's a question, though: is more precious editor time and energy wasted on dealing with cryptozoology, or with cryptocurrency? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, whether by feeding to known whales or to hyenas or otherwise. Not even enough information in the stub to be encyclopedic even if notable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, Previously well-fleshed article, now just a stub carcass .-- Auric   talk  23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (Came here from ANI, as I guess did probably many of the others) Delete and salt and trout Andy Dingley for questioning the good faith of someone removing crap like this obviously bogus citation (taking a piece of tongue-in-cheek satire as a source for a factual claim) before nominating. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete corpses possess neither inherent not inherited notability, and as such need to pass GNG. This does not do so. ——  SN  54129  11:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete with no prejudice against including this in a list of similar things somewhere appropriate. I hate to pile on but WP:GNG is not satisfied in current or previous versions of the article. Searching only found a handful of appropriate sources which have only isolated in-passing coverage. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Corresponding German article seems pretty decent to me with RS.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * German article was translated from the English article in 2006. All of the sources are fringe (Bright, Coleman, Shuker discussed above; Strange Magazine, Fortean Times, online "Cryptid Compendiums") and are in fact the same ones that were removed from enwiki due to their unreliability. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't add much more that hasn't already been said, but I'm just not seeing notability for the term established in sources either here or at the article itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2019 (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.