Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Giglioli's Whale

A good source
Ran across the merger (belatedly). The claim that there were no sources (except for 'Cryptid fandom') missed this scholarly article. Indeed, a routine search here at Google books shows lots of sources. Doesn't anybody bother to click on the links at the top of an AFD before they !vote? Or WP:Before they nominate for deletion? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that,, that "scholarly article" is pure undiluted crypto-poppycock from beginning to end (where thanks are given to Karl Shuker for his input). Raynal is not a scientist (this is his contribution to Crypto: Dracontology), and Aquatic Mammals is not a learned journal – it's published by an association of dolphin trainers or something similar. Anyway, this is not the place for this to be discussed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and your opinion.
 * I enjoyed the article you linked.
 * However, Aquatic Mammals claims to be a peer reviewed journal here. Indeed, it says it is the oldest peer reviewed marine journal.  It also claims affiliation with some seemingly knowledgeable and respectable marine organizations.  Do you have information to the contrary?
 * You seem to be making an argumentum ad hominem, rather than addressing the article and its source on the merits.
 * If you consult my WP:User page it has an explanation about pings. Happy holidays.  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)