Deletion of Burrunjor

Comment: 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  - ''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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:REDFLAG)

Comment: article is not accurate; article gives no reliable sources (failing ); and article makes unauthenticated (false) claims about the beliefs of other living people (failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCE||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: 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  and , 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  either and that I should upgrade my initial intention from just "delete" to "Strong Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)