Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-29/John Keel

Where is the dispute?
In the article on John Keel, I am attempting to offer a counter-argument to a claim critical of Keel's work. The claim surrounds reference #3. I am attempting to add a source that is a counter to reference #3, to offer readers a more well-rounded perspective on the source. However, the user LuckyLouie keeps deleting my edit. He just sent me a message claiming that the source I provided, a well-known blog by an author who has written extensively on the fields which Keel wrote about, is not a valid source, which I am disputing.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:A Hyman Roth74
 * User:B LuckyLouie

What is the dispute?
The above decription of the issue should suffice.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like my edit of the Keel article to cease being deleted.

How do you think we can help?
Can you stop the user LuckyLouie from editing my change to this article?

Discussion
Articles_for_deletion/John_Keel was closed as keep with a consensus to include appropriate criticism of Keel from reliable sources. I think most would agree that any "rebuttals" of such criticism need originate from reliable sources and be specific to the subject, rather than be generalized support for a WP:FRINGE view, i.e. "Nevertheless...Mothman was no hoax", etc. Part of the problem is that I think Hyman Roth74 may not fully understand that articles dealing with fringe science are weighted toward the mainstream view of such things, and don't give "equal credibility" to minority views. His response to the situation, which was to remove all criticism is unfortunate, however I'm not going to revert it. At the moment, I'm not sure we need mediation. A few additional uninvolved editors discussing changes to the article on the Talk page would be the best solution here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)