Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enfield Monster


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. I have to say that there's a strong argument to MOVE this to an "...incident" title with a redirect, which makes far more sense, but I will not super!vote D  P  09:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Enfield Monster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See also Space Penguins of Tuscumbia Articles for deletion/Space Penguins of Tuscumbia. Probable WP:HOAX that doesn't cite sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not one reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reliable sources are even rarer than cryptids, apparently.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources. One source is another wiki. One of the websites (which doesn't look like it'd meet WP:RS anyway posits it may have been a kangaroo the person saw. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a reliable book that mentions the Enfield Monster on two pages (written by Daniel Cohen) but it's only one book. It wouldn't be enough for the article. The best suggestion is a delete due to lack of sources. Goblin Face (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The cryptozoonews.com source given in the article is clearly headlined as being a reprint of an article from Fate magazine. Combined with the Cohen book mentioned above, this seems enough to meet WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the above, the incident was the subject of a scholarly paper published in 1978:
 * A Critical Examination of the Social Contagion Image of Collective Behavior: The Case of the Enfield Monster by David L. Miller, Kenneth J. Mietus and Richard A. Mathers. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 1978) , pp. 129-140. Available on JSTOR (subscription required).
 * This paper (top hit on Google Scholar) discusses the incident in great depth and mentions the media attention that it gained at the time - it appeared in papers "throughout the state" on 27 April 1973, and on 7 May there was an interview on radio station WGN, Chicago and articles (of what length I don't know) in the Chicago Daily News, the Moline Dispatch, Champaign-Urbana Courier and the Alton Telegraph. There were earlier articles in the Carmi Times. People really ought to do a little basic research before asserting "no reliable sources" or "probable WP:HOAX". —S MALL  JIM   14:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People really ought to do a little basic research before they create articles on fringe topics.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That certainly seems to put the WP:HOAX claims to rest, but I'm not sure that it establishes notability. Usually notability requires sustained interest in the topic itself - that paper is on social contagion and uses the Enfield Monster as a single case study. I would think that it would have to be a fairly well-known study to pass the threshold of notability. And even then, the article would likely be about the study itself, not the subject of the study. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG per:
 * Introduction to Collective Behavior and Collective Action: Third Edition. pp. 148-151.
 * Reprinted article from Fate magazine
 * Unknown Creatures. p. 27.
 * "A Critical Examination of the Social Contagion Image of Collective Behavior: the Case of the Enfield Monster". The Sociological Quarterly.
 * – NorthAmerica1000 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Unknown Creatures" book is self-published and not reliable. I'm not familiar enough with Fate to judge whether it's a reliable source, but from the article there it certainly seems Fringe. I also don't think that the first and last sources really establish notability for the monster itself, since it's presented as a case study in mass hysteria. To the extent that they establish notability, it's really only the notability of the reaction, not of the monster itself, which is incidental to the story. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 19:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fate is pretty much the definition of fringe. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 0x0077BE, the article isn't about a "monster" – that would be WP:FRINGE. The article is about what happened in Enfield in Spring 1973: a set of incidents (caused by a kangaroo and mass hysteria, I suppose) that generally go by the name of the "Enfield Monster" – a much smaller version of those that make up the Loch Ness Monster article for example. It's this set of incidents that we have to determine the notability of, and IMO they have been discussed (for what purpose makes no difference) by enough reliable sources to pass WP:N. I've added Miller's Social Contagion paper and a 1/3 page summary that was printed in a Pennsylvania newspaper in August '73 to the article. There are without doubt many more newspaper reports: I haven't found copies of the contemporary ones (listed above), but the fact that they're mentioned by a reliable source suggests we can trust that they exist, and they all add towards the notability. —S MALL  JIM   13:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not about the monster, why isn't it called Enfield monster incident or something? The first line of the article is "The Enfield Monster is a creature reported by several eyewitnesses in Enfield, a village in southern Illinois, United States in April 1973.". It's pretty clearly about the monster. The attention that a popular high school football star receives is just a "smaller version" of what professional football players receive, so again I don't see how that's much of an argument. Notability guidelines specifically indicate that coverage has to be sustained (not necessarily ongoing, but it has to be of interest well after its initial coverage), so a purely contemporary account doesn't help without reliable sources from later on. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:COMMONNAME for the article's title, and see Category:Cryptozoology for numerous examples. 2. You can rewrite the article if you want – it does need it! 3. The point about the "smaller version" of the Loch Ness Monster article is that such articles don't try to come up with a description of the "monster", they describe what has been said about it by others. If enough reliable sources have written about it, we can have an article. Exactly the same would be true of your high school footballer. 4. Sustained coverage? See WP:NTEMP, as long as it's more than WP:NOTNEWS. HTH. —S MALL  JIM   18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP is why I said "if not ongoing". A contemporary local news story isn't enough to establish that't is more than WP:NOTNEWS was my point there. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to address concern #3, I think that the Loch Ness monster itself has become notable independent of any individual incidents of social contagion. Same with Bigfoot, Spring-heeled Jack, etc. They've entered the public consciousness as characters themselves. That's different from this case, where there doesn't seem to be any non-fringe interest in the monster, just interest in the mass hysteria event that swept through the town. Do we agree that there's a difference here? 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck one of the sources I provided above; it's self published. NorthAmerica1000 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Decent sources are mounting, and I think they will continue to do so. Apparently hundreds of halfway decent (e.g. American Monsters) to marginal or poor blogs, a scholarly paper, treatment in part of at least one reliable book (discounting the other self-published one), the Fate magazine article, mention in a few other marginal sources, and then I found this episode of Haunted Collector, a show on Syfy, which seems like a pretty strong source (though I haven't watched it). Passes GNG by my eye, anyway, if not with flying colors. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Also, the Reading Eagle source seems decent as well as a seemingly old and established, albeit local, newspaper. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any "mounting" sources. A million non-reliable sources doesn't help establish notability any more than 5 non-reliable sources. The only thing close to a reliable source you've cited is the Reading Eagle paper, and that's a contemporary account in a local newspaper. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly are you interpreting WP:RS? The subject of a scholarly paper, significant coverage in a book, the subject of a nationally broadcast television episode, a newspaper feature-length article, a magazine article -- and all of them reliable sources. The "million non-notable sources" are not essential for showing notability, but do suggest that, for this decades-old subject, there are more reliable sources out there (i.e. unreliable sources that mention unavailable reliable sources). So, again, if these unreliable sources and the yet unseen reliable sources were the entire case for keeping, you'd be right to jump on it. But they're not. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not my understanding of how reliable sources work. The whole point of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE is that fringe topics need mainstream coverage if they are going to have coverage in this encyclopedia. A show dedicated to fringe topics, even on a mainstream channel like Discovery, is not sufficient to establish mainstream notability, nor is a magazine devoted to covering all the fringe points of view. My whole point was that you can't count the unreliable sources at all, so you can't say, "Well we have one reliable source plus 50 unreliable ones, so that's close enough". The zero times 50 is still zero. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The newspaper and article sources are reliable, but I explained above why I don't think they establish notability. The magazine and TV show are WP:FRINGE sources and not reliable. So far I see exactly 3 reliable sources - the book and article about social contagion and the newspaper article. I think the newspaper article can establish notability in combination with some later coverage of the same event, per WP:NOTNEWS. In my opinion, the social contagion papers may be enough to establish notability for something like Enfield monster incident, but not an article on the monster itself. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're using WP:FRINGE as rationale to call sources unreliable. From the top of that page: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." It's about the role of fringe theories when talking about mainstream subjects, not that publications about fringe topics are unreliable. "Enfield Monster" is a fringe subject, so publications about fringe subjects are absolutely appropriate. If someone wanted to cite these sources to talk about a scientific topic, then you'd have a point. But this is a cryptid. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete After seeing the sources being put forth, I'm ready to vote. I am unconvinced by the arguments above about the notability. At best they make a case for redirect to an event-based article like Enfield monster incident or something. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The content of the article, whether called "Enfield monster" or "Enfield monster incident" will discuss the same subject in only slightly different terms. If Enfield monster incident already existed, a redirect would make sense, but what you're really saying is that this should be renamed. That the article title isn't descriptive or appropriate isn't a good reason for deletion. It can always be moved to a new name afterwards, but is the subject notable enough to keep? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that there's notability even for Enfield monster incident, but the case is stronger for moving the article there and reformulating it than for keeping it where it is, which is why my !vote is for deletion, but falling back to supporting a redirect over keeping it how it is. There's also probably an argument for WP:TNT anyway, since the existing article is about 90% in-universe, and a move to Enfield monster incident would primarily be focused on the mass hysteria and social contagion, and not on the monster itself. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 23:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There's two skeptical books that mention the Enfield Monster. One is Superstition and the Press written by Curtis Daniel MacDougall and published by Prometheus Books. Unfortunately the book is out of print and hard to obtain but it debunks the whole case. The other is the book Everything you need to know about monsters and still be able to get to sleep by Daniel Cohen. Cohen wrote for mainly for young audiences but his books took a skeptical stance to such subjects unlike most other authors who wrote on the topic. And yes there are quite a few cryptozoology books that mention the case but many of these are quite unreliable. I don't have the MacDougall book, it's been on my purchase list for a long time. Sorry I can't be of help on this. I will change my vote to a keep if other sources can be found. Goblin Face (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No substantial evidence of notability. The sources so far are not very high quality. Open to changing my vote with some more sources, further argument and some editing of article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If you compare the Enfield Monster article to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveland_frog you will see that the sources of the latter are much more worse. There is no unanimous agreement over a deletion. It´s now time to stop this totally absurd discussion and to accept that this article is notable and relevant enough for Wikipedia ! --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (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.