Talk:Dinosaur of Ta Prohm
Latest comment: 25 days ago by ජපස in topic Excessive reliance on self-published sources
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dinosaur of Ta Prohm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Excessive reliance on self-published sources
editThe paleo.cc article is a self-published blogpost by someone with neither any expertise in paleontology or (arguably more importantly) in Cambodian temple carvings. The fact that is so heavily relied on as a source is problematic. It should really be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is this article even worthy of existence? The topic should be dispensed with quickly and without drama. "As with many design elements around the world's archaeological sites which bare superficial similarity to other anachronisms, some pseudoscientists hype unfounded interpretations that excite their antagonism towards basic science. Such profligates propose that this is a stegosaurus, an animal which went extinct some 100 million years ago." You know... not that but... that. jps (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an article that I would have personally created, and I wouldn't be upset if it was deleted, but there appears to be enough coverage of it in non self published sources like Smithsonian and Skeptical Inquirer and the Atlas Obscura book that I don't think it would be a slam dunk at AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- We need to improve our explanations of how much material is enough for WP:STANDALONE articles. Topics can be encyclopedic but not deserve their own page. I think we can summarize all that is written on this subject much more succinctly than an article is intended to do. In that instance, AfD wouldn't be strictly necessary. A merge back with redirect and succinct summary to a better, more comprehensive article on related things would perhaps suffice. jps (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any article in mind? I couldn't think of an appropriate merge target off of the top of my head. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- We need to improve our explanations of how much material is enough for WP:STANDALONE articles. Topics can be encyclopedic but not deserve their own page. I think we can summarize all that is written on this subject much more succinctly than an article is intended to do. In that instance, AfD wouldn't be strictly necessary. A merge back with redirect and succinct summary to a better, more comprehensive article on related things would perhaps suffice. jps (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an article that I would have personally created, and I wouldn't be upset if it was deleted, but there appears to be enough coverage of it in non self published sources like Smithsonian and Skeptical Inquirer and the Atlas Obscura book that I don't think it would be a slam dunk at AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)