- 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. v/r - TP 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quacker (sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Massive chunk of original research with the odd citation to things that can not really be said to be reliable sources. Not salvageable (I can't find anything that hints as coverage of a reliable source. FWIW the effect is almost certainly what western powers classify as the far less mysterious bioduck but that is also original research. ©Geni 04:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The article promises that it has reliable sources (government reports and maybe a few academic papers mentioned on the talk page) but we need to actually see them used. Normally I would favor seeking out someone who has access to the sources where available, but these sorts of tall tales easily get blown out of proportion online by spook websites, and I can't find any reliable sources about them online myself. I'd like to believe there are reliable sources somewhere, but without seeing them I can't favor keeping the page. —Ed!(talk) 08:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree that it can't be salvaged. Admittedly ufology websites aren't very reliable, but there does seem to be a book and some newspaper articles. I think it's worth looking into by someone who knows Russian. Google Translate can only get me so far. And the bioduck phenomenon has a couple of reliable mentions, so perhaps they could become the meat of the article with the quackers as an aside? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The validity of something called "Ghosts from the ocean floor" is at best zero and I don't have much in the way of of confidence in Komsomolskaya Pravda. You can't link bioduck with quackers because no one outside of wikipedia has done so so thats original research.©Geni 15:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.178.234 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC) keep just look for sources, don't delete... this is whats wrong with wikipedia's community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.33.227 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Nothing here passes the test of IRS. A reasonable search finds nothing useable. If a well documented phenomenon "bioduck" isn't available as a redirect target, then delete. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (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.