Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I just restored this after I deleted it as A7. Further info given on my talk page is enough to get it through A7 I think, so restored and brought here for wider consideration Ged  UK  20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

*Delete Non-notable and fringe. The two sources listed were to the group's webpages. It needs references to independant, reliable, thirdy party non-fringe sources to establish notability. Even so, it still is fringe. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources clearly show how notable this organization is. I would like to have the opportunity to fix this article and will start immediately if it stays.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of reliable, third party references they just need to be added.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now and here would be a good moment to bring them forward.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, the easiest example is to make one click on the Books tab above just past find sources. The BFRO is referenced many times in many books and in many news story's. If you need more help finding any just ask me and I will fetch you some.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know how to use google. The problem is to filter out something that indicates lasting notability of the organization itself and you were the one asserting that. If I take e.g. those found by Prsaucer, all refer to one expedition in 2007 which is by itself only interesting in the context of the search for Bigfoot. From which the weblink for this very organization has been removed in the past. More below. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no credible assertion of notability; suspect a COI, but that may be my experience triumphing over my optimism again. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have changed my recomendation based on the following references to independant, reliable, third party, and non-fringe sources that I found. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Fox News) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286879,00.html


 * (CBS News) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/27/tech/main2987101.shtml


 * (United Press International) http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2007/06/29/Watercooler-Stories/UPI-41661183113000/


 * (Television Station) http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77266


 * Delete - With respect to independent non-fringe sources, the organization is simply covered as part of the general topic of the search for Sasquatch and possible sightings and explanations, i.e. the bulk of Bigfoot, the only notable topic here. No objection to a redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose a redirect is better than a delete at least if someone needs to search Wiki for it they'll find some material about it.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Although the club gets passing mentions in a few "mysterious mysteries" books and "news of the weird" stories about Bigfoot, no serious non-trivial coverage of the type needed to justify its own article found. Redirect per Tikiwont. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 21 July 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.