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. Lack of WP:V and WP:RS remains an issue for the article. Pigman☿ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrunjor[edit]

Burrunjor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Hoax (and/or) Theory of Rex Gilroy (and/or) non-noted creature. Seems all referring back to a line in a book (2006) Dinosaurs: Dead Or Alive?. No reliable sources offered and none can be found. Single mention in a book, no news articles, no scholarly articles and no web mentions I can see outside a small circle of crypto zoologists. Fails to be a subject that is any way verifyable Peripitus (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Rex Gilroy. Certainly not a hoax, but not notable on its own. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered simply merged to Rex Gilroy but the only reliable source I can see is a limited view book on google books - can't see if it mentions Mr Gilroy. There are 18 related google hits but I don't know enough about the subject to determine if any of them are reliable - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not on teh intarwebz doesn't mean material doesn't exist on it. My school's library has scanned copies of two of the three books; they don't give massive depth on the subject, but they do mention it as the subject of aboriginal legends. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just because somebody has mentioned it in a book doesn't mean that it's not a hoax. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Books written by researches do that. If that weren't the case, then we might as well just nominate World War II as a hoax right now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you mean is that it's existence is controversial like the Yeti and that the thing itself may be a hoax, then yes; but we have research regarding such things, and that makes them encyclopedic. The legends surrounding it, judging by Aboriginal tribes, trackers and rural natives of Austalia are not hoaxes, if that's what you were getting at. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is exactly what I said. As well as being discussed in a book, the book must pass WP:RS and I don't think books by Rex Gilroy do that. His books are long on theory and short on fact. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge content on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons; if we did, then the wars would never end. Instead, only notability and verifiability should be taken into account regarding sources. The fact that he is an author and an expert in his field is easily found by anyone with an internet connection. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're giving Mr Gilroy, who I met while researching the Gosford hieroglyphs, far more credibility than he deserves. He is only an "expert" because his field is small and very few people wish to associate themselves with it. He has no qualifications. His findings are criticised by actual, qualified experts in various fields. In short, he doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is a questionable source at best. As such, what he writes doesn't pass WP:RS. None of the links you provided comes close to proving that it does. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Even if the sources are questionable, we have guidelines for such things, which suggest it is fine to use them within the context of this article, or within a section on it in his own article, which is where this really belongs. What he has done in this field is verifiable by the numerous sources posted above; the size of his field is irrelevant, as is his placement in the pecking order of said field is; he is notable per secondary coverage that can be verified, and that's all that matters. Besides, the question here is what to do with this article, which is almost entirely based on his research. As such, since his research in this field hasn't been the subject of secondary coverage, I think it should be merged to his article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this cryptid is little known and primarily researched by a man whom many think might be insane does not make it a hoax. It is not a hoax. Just google it if you must, its noy a hoax, and I believe at least marginally desrving of its own Wikipedia page. Spykeesam (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: article is not accurate; article gives no reliable sources (failing WP:SOURCE); and article makes unauthenticated (false) claims about the beliefs of other living people (failing WP:SELFPUB). Bruceanthro (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not verified by citations in reliable sources - ie in this case I would be looking for scholarly sources on Indigenous Australian beliefs. User Celarnor cites our guidelines on Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves as suggesting that the source is fine to use within the context of this article. I disagree that it meets this guideline as it breaches the first two qualifications for that guideline. I see that in this case the material used is relevant to their notability - ie without it there would be no article and secondly it is indeed contentious - as pointed out by User:Gnangarra on WP:AWNB The article says "some Tribes" yet Arnhem Land is home to only the Yolngu, the animal is said to live in the Australian Desert yet Arnhem Land is Tropical wetlands. The next guideline under self-publishing is WP:REDFLAG - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources which is covered more at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. That sub section states that Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. No mainstream sources in this case and definitely surprising claims within the article. Under Wikipedia:Fringe theories - In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. I see no evidence that this article meets that guideline - no major publication is cited.--Matilda ^talk 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unverified article that is most likely a hoax. This fringe theory is little-known, not notable and as User Matilda explains, this article fails to meet several wikipedia guidelines. Hardly worthy of an encyclopedic article. Mark t young (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. The cited sources may not reliably demonstrate that this creature did definitely exist. However, there are plenty of sources (some cited, others available via any search engine like google) that describe and confirm serious discussion about this creature, and that makes it notable. There is no proof that time travel exists, for example, yet we have a Wikipedia article about it. If there is a verifiable link between this creature and Rex Gilroy, I suggest that this creature be added to that article with a wikilink to this article. Truthanado (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is an interesting source to consider.Truthanado (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Above I voted that this article be deleted. In making this recommendation:

• I do NOT have any issue as to whether or not a Burrunjors exists and still lives in Australia!!

• I do NOT dispute that there are some people around in this world who talk about a Burrunjor possibly living in Australia .. and that talk is recorded!!

• I DO have an issue about Wikipedia keeping articles that makes unreliable, inaccurate and false claims about the beliefs of other living people .. and, even, takes it's name from such unreliable, inaccurate and false claims!

A search of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies online catalogue fails to reveal any use of the name Burrunjor, or any version of Burrunjor by any Aboriginal group or Aboriginal scholar anywhere in Australia.

Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's 'verifiability' standards are clearly intended to ensure articles posted are factual in nature, and, until someone can produce a truly reliable (see WP:SOURCE)third party source verifying Burrunjor is in fact an Aboriginal name used by an actual, named Aborignal group/s as stated .. the article must be judged unverifiable. False claims of fact offend Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards and articles founded on such claims (as is this Banjour article) must, therefore, be deleted . Bruceanthro (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the article itself says, "little known cryptid". There is a lack of reliable sources that discuss this particular animal/creature, and as Bruceanthro says, there is no proof that this is actually seriously used or believed by anybody. If reliable sources are provided I will retract this statement, but as is this smells awfully fishy to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability even by those wanting to keep make this a no-brainer. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the revealing comments by Aussie legend above SatuSuro 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. The cited sources may not reliably demonstrate that this creature did definitely exist. However, there are plenty of sources (some cited, others available via any search engine like google) that describe and confirm serious discussion about this creature, and that makes it notable. There is no proof that time travel exists, for example, yet we have a Wikipedia article about it. If there is a verifiable link between this creature and Rex Gilroy, I suggest that this creature be added to that article with a wikilink to this article. What he said. Spykeesam (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above. Sources far too weak, may be a hoax (and not notable as a hoax). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete As above, including my own earlier comments when I didn't vote. Nothing said by supporters of the article before or since then has convinced me that this article is worth retaining. Quite to the contrary, failure to provide suitable references that comply with WP:V and WP:RS, as well as my own inability to find anything else of any substance on the subject article anywhere has convinced me thet the subject doesn't pass WP:N either and that I should upgrade my initial intention from just "delete" to "Strong Delete". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources.--Grahame (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of RS, V issues and possible (non-notable) hoax. Orderinchaos 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.