Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orang-bati

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. As the only two keep arguments have compelling rebuttals which were not countered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orang-bati

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG; no significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source listed in the article is available at academia.edu and misused somewhat.
eric 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC);[reply]

Delete not at all notable. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm going to go out on a limb, pardon the pun, and say there's an argument to be made is is a notable mythical creature. There's been some coverage in periodicals, books, and a scholarly article on mythology. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first two links are just to google searches. The third link is a good article, but the only reference to the Bati is a work called Esuriun orang Bati, the worldcat summary is On esuriun, local wisdom of Bati people of Seram Island, Indonesia. (and see
  eric 01:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources can be found to build an article on the mythical creature. This article is on a cryptid and there's nothing useful in it for a potential new article. Thus a "delete" is the best approach, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above. If we can dig up reliable sources discussing folk belief in this entity, then I'd be happy to see a solid article put together, but if we're stuck with a bunch of fringe sources, well, deletion is the only real option. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found by Bearian. I think we have enough coverage to warrant an article. There are enough books that have determined this subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Google searches don't carry any weight at AFD. Could you list a few specific sources that could be used to establish notability? –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bati are a real people[1][2][3] who have been considered sorcerers by their neighbors ...feared and admired throughout the central Moluccas for their powers are the highland Muslim "Bati" of east Seram, wo are said to be able to take the form of deer, fish, and birds.[4] They are not a "cryptid" or mythical creature but a people with legends surrounding them. Most of the reliable sources are in Indonesian, the cryptozoology crap is in English and floods your google search results. The origin is one unqualified person who briefly visited Seram in 1986 and sent a letter to Shuker repeating some stories. Notability for articles is determined by reliable sources.—

eric 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many other similar cryptozoology type articles on Wikipedia. What should we do with articles like Garkain? Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (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.