Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennington Triangle


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bennington Triangle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No non-primary verifiable sources. No sources less than 28 years old. No indication listed references contain evidence of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Following is a copy of analysis of listed references on article.


 * About.com: http://www.strangenation.com.au/articles/vanish.htm
 * Dead link
 * Adams, Mary Gavel "The Bennington Monster." Green Mountain Whittlin's, 1950
 * 59 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.
 * Stock, R.D.; Zeller, J. "The Strange Disappearances at Mt. Glastenbury." FATE, July 1957
 * 52 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.
 * Brandon, Jim. Weird America. Penguin Publishing |Year=1978
 * 31 year old book. I have not checked this yet, more later.
 * Jacobs, Sally. "Ghost Towns." Burlington Free Press|Year=Oct 25, 1981
 * Only reference I could find on line to Sally Jacobs and Ghost Towns was in a book by Joseph Citro. No references to her primary sources.  Furthermore reference is not 17 years old (as I previously posited, it is 28 years old.
 * Citro, Joseph A. Green Mountain Ghosts, Ghouls, and Unsolved Mysteries. University of New England/ Vermont Life, 1994
 * Primary source.
 * Citro, Joseph A. Passing Strange: True Tales of New England Hauntings and Horrors.

Globe-Pequot, 1997
 * Primary source.
 * Checking for the Jim Brandon book now to see if I can dig it up.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I looked up Jim Brandon and found out that this is actually a pseudonym for William N. Grimstad, a conspiracy theorist. I confirmed that Weird America is a real book although it isn't on google books or available online that I can find so I can't confirm that it contains anything that would count as a verifiable source for commentary on Citro's proposition.  I don't want to look too hard at Grimstad as I am at a work computer and the first page of google links to his name mostly brings up white supremicist sites.  I'm AfDing as I am now convinced that none of the bullet-point sources constitute RS.Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Just by the flawed reasoning of the nom. With comments like "59 year old periodical.  Not reasonably verifiable", the nom needs to understand that Al Gore invented the internet in the late 20th century and anything pre-2000-esque is not heavily covered on the net.  Old books and ""59 year old periodicals" without internet hyperlinks are not and have never been excluded as reliable sources per WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY.  (to the humor challenged, the Al Gore bit is a joke)  --Oakshade (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not saying old books aren't notable. However when there is literally not a single source less than 28 years old commenting on the subject I would question if it remains notable in the modern world.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So unless some 10th century king has not been subject to a biography since 1981 we are deleting them now?  Plus the article itself says the term was coined in 1992 and one source says it is 1994.  Have agree the nomination logic is screwy, but will hold off on vote until I look a little more. --Milowent (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding was that notability depended on critical commentary of the subject at hand. The majority of references cited are primary sources or, as Milowent pointed out, predate the claimed coining date for the phrase.  A fringe theory about a mountain in the USA is not the same as a 10th century king.Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As they predate the coining of the term they can hardly be references to the notability of the term. They do not represent second or third party commentary on Citro's primary source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The various sources listed do support the existance of individual stories about "weird event X that is said to have happened in Y town" .... but they don't support the the idea that these individual stories are connected together in some way (ie the idea that there is a "Bennington Triangle", the topic of the article). The idea that the individual stories are connected in some way is a theory created by author Joseph A. Citro, and dates to 1992 (well after the listed sources).  Thus, to establish that the topic of this article is notable, we need sources that comment on the theory that a "Bennington Triangle" exists, not sources that simply retell the disperate tales that form the basis for the theory.  Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Change of opinion: It seems that sources that do support the notability of the tipic, and comment on Citro's theory, may exist after all (see Milowent's comments below). If this is indeed the case, then the article needs to be fixed, and if fixed should be Kept.  Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Thank you, that is what I was trying to get at . I am not entirely convinced but will not kick up a fuss if the decision is to keep the article.  With that said please, pretty please, get some verifiable in-line citations into it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Far more than enough sources and weight to be notable. BTW, I was able to access the relevant pages of the Weird America (2005) book via Amazon inside.  I also fixed the "dead link" to about.com by finding that article preserved at the Internet Archive.  While Citro coined the phrase "Bennington Triangle", he's apparently been able to publish at least 3 books which talk about it, and many other sources also reference the phrase.   Google News Archives reveals a number of references in local papers such as the "Bennington Banner" to the phrase (most of these are pay archives to be able to access full content).  Any references in the articles prior to 1992 are not going to use the term "Bennington Triangle" but are instead references to the underlying events which led to the coining of the term.   But there is lots and lots out there on this term, beyond just the tons of ghost/weird-things type websites out there, like the ref I just added to The Cracker Barrel, which is a southern Vermont publication put out by the Deerfield Valley News.  I think this is part of the local folklore now based on my 30 minutes spent on the subject, and that an article on this subject improves the project--Milowent (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources in article do indeed back up the statements, and indeed do constitute reliable sources (please see WP:RS and WP:V). That said, some improvement on the article would really be nice ;) Cheers,  I 'mperator 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly seems to be enough substantiation of both the name and "mystery" for inclusion. In addition to the work others ahead of me have put in, a search around the internet throws up a wide variety of discussions well before this wikipedia article was published. Lochaber (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kind of silly and fictive. Derivative name. There are probably thousands of these in the US alone. Why encourage nonsense? Student7 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether a source is one month old or 59 years old. A source is a source and should never be judged by its age. The source listed are correct and should be kept on the basis of its source. Jeremy (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree the sources do establish notability.  D r e a m Focus  14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided establish notability. I'm unaware of a requirement that sources about an individual be under 28 years old. Such an arbitrary rule would eliminate all articles about anyone under 28 years of age, say Britney Spears or companies like Google or Ebay. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.