Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot trap


 * 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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigfoot trap

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Notability. Only mentioned in one local news story. Other sites are a government website which doesn't seem to mention it and a private website. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - going with the quick Google News link above, I see seven stories, and not all are local. But do note, that there is nothing in the notability guidelines about local sources, so whether or not a source is local is a bit moot. We go with reliable sources, which may include local news outlets, but that's a different argument than not notable because its local. Further, this thing got started in 1974 according to the article, so I'm guessing there might be some news stories covering it available on microfiche, or via databases un-searchable by Google (for instance The Oregonian's paid archives that go back to 1987 are not available via Google News). But do tell what searches you did prior to nominating this for deletion? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as it appears the nominator didn't do their good faith search, and others have discovered a plethora of sources, it is clear this is notable. And, just like there is nothing about sources being discounted for being "local", there is nothing in the notability guidelines about things not being notable because they are "local". The proposal for something similar has yet to gain traction, and the current proposal only calls for it meeting WP:NOTE anyway, which this topic does. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Mentioned recently in three stories as a filming location: ,,, four Mail Tribune stories over the years (2006-2009): ,,,, a 1997 story in the Grants Pass Daily Courier:, a 1992 Associated Press story that was picked up nationally: , , a mention on the government agency Oregon Tourism Commission's Travel Oregon website: , and a mention on the U.S. Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest site: . Although several of the mentions are little more than trivial (however "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"), there are a couple substantial writeups (all these are reliable sources), and articles about the site (at least what can be found immediately on the Internet) span over 15 years. A quick survey of Google Books shows writeups and mentions in books by Robert Michael Pyle, notable Oregon writer William L. Sullivan, and in several Forest Service Publications: .Katr67 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on citations cited above, which can be added to the article. Good work, particularly Katr67 for her search. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for adding more sources. I still think the Bigfoot trap is only a local curiosity, covered only with one exception only by local media and tourist guides, not something of lasting importance. Even if it had actually caught a Bigfoot it would probably only be mentioned in the article about that and would still not have its own article.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I cleaned up the external links (previously listed as references) and made most into inline citations. Two were low value and are commented out for the moment; another is now merely an external link.  I don't have a strong opinion of whether the article should remain or be deleted.  But if deleted, the information should be merged to one of the Bigfoot articles, perhaps Evidence regarding Bigfoot or Formal studies of Bigfoot.  —EncMstr (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is supported by the sources recently added. Plazak (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being of merely "local interest" is not sufficient grounds for deletion (and I'm also not entirely convinced it's true in this case). The article appears to pass WP:V handily, and is not in violation of any content policies or guidelines. -Pete (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More sources -Pete (talk):
 * Keep It seems to have several references at present. There are plenty of quirky little articles on wikipedia about items of "local" interest - I don't see any reason to delete this. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. Many of the sources were found in search links provided by the nom above.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 12 October 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.
 * Keep It seems to have several references at present. There are plenty of quirky little articles on wikipedia about items of "local" interest - I don't see any reason to delete this. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. Many of the sources were found in search links provided by the nom above.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 12 October 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.