Talk:The Jacobs Creature

I decided to write my first Wikipedia article on The Jacobs Creature for several reasons. First of all I found it was a previously deleted article abandoned for notability reasons. After reading the interesting Mogollon Monster article, I found it  also was almost deleted due to notability. DreamGuy (talk) commented that The Jacobs Creature was more notable than the Mogollon Monster. Seen here Secondly I live within two hours of the actual location of where [The Jacobs Creature] was caught on film. There is a history of Bigfoot sightings in the area the photos were taken. There are annual expeditions to this site on its anniversary. --71.116.40.215 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The legend of the Jacobs creature is about a cryptid. The evidence for the existence of this creature is insufficient to withstand normal scientific scrutiny by the general zoological community. Nonetheless it became popular from a lot of people that still belive it was a young Sasquatch. It's the unknown mystery that draws the attention of everyone including myself.--ChubsterII (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then go to a site for Bigfoot true believers and leave this site alone. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeper? yes. Contest winner? no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.184.124 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article falls within the notability guideline but still needs a little work.--12.68.5.20 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was a recreation of a previously deleted article. It was not notable before, it's not notable now. I therefore have redirected to the main article related to this topic. And please do not take my statements out of context to try to justify an article about this. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A recreated page has staying power if consensus has changed. The article shouldn’t be automatically deleted or reverted back to a redirect. Since time is needed to improve the page from its original text, we need to prevent the page from being deleted again so I placed the construction tag at the top of the page as well.--ChubsterII (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus has not changed, it's just the exact same people putting POV-pushing twaddle into the article and ignoring what more experienced editors decided. In fact, odds are very good the lot of you are the same people who got banned on your previous accounts and are just back under a new name. You're single purpose accounts with no purpose here other than promoting woo woo WP:FRINGE nonsense. You got reverted by multiple people when you tried to put this crap elsewhere, you'll get reverted when you try to put it here. Trying to game the system by throwing an "under construction" tag at the top won't help. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy is the one that was charged with gaming the system and socking not me. He spends a great deal of time playing on Wikipedia. If deleting this article is that important to him then have fun, I have no desire to play his games.--ChubsterII (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, somebody sure dug into the depths of Wikipedia history to drag out an old, baseless accusation someone made against me from ages ago. All you've done here is play games, but if you're done with it, great. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

not clear? clear--Ryanirad (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced it after DreamGuy was suspended for making such disruptive edits.--ChubsterII (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Image--ChubsterII (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to redirect the article to Bigfoot as per the AFD decision. You can follow this link to learn more about the process.--Timpicerilo (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)