Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobs Creature


 * 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   redirect to Bigfoot. The consensus of arguments (not the countin of bolded votes) indicates merge/redirection. Consensus here should not automatically override consensus established at a more suitable locations such as the article talkpage, so this will be a close to redirect, with merging of material left as a separate decision to be made elsewhere. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacobs Creature

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

No notability established, orphaned article, article created by SPA account that got banned for use of sockpuppets to push agenda, and existence of article would seem to violated WP:UNDUE and our ArbCom created policies on fringe science topics, as the only reputable sources who have weighed in say unequivocally that it was a bear and not a Bigfoot. People on Bigfoot article don't find it notable for mention there, so having a full article would make even less sense. Even the name is odd, as only one source calls it that, and that's some Bigfoot true believer site, with no evidence anyone else used the term. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask for some clarification before weighing in here.There were references from newspapers here that have now been removed for some reason, there have been a lot of edits so I'm not sure I get when and why they were removed from the article. I'm dismayed to discover that other editors working on this page were all one person. (and mildly embarrassed that I didn't figure it out). Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that many of those references were removed when the Origin section was removed because it basically repeated the lead. Those references were never moved into the lead, which if this is kept should be done. I think some of the references were removed because the articles didn't support the statements made. There certainly are news reports from the month following the announcement of the pictures. However, there don't appear to be much else in the way of sources for this material. —Fiziker t c 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While this topic gained attention at the time it happened there has been little done with it since. Some Bigfoot organizations use it as an example but it has not risen to a level of prominence that has gotten skeptics to mention it (excluding the time shortly following the publication of these pictures). I'm therefore inclined to say that this is not notable enough. However, I think this is a somewhat border line case. —Fiziker t c 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bigfoot; one news incident does not rate its own article. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this recently on Talk:Bigfoot. The consensus is that this sighting is not prominent enough to warrant inclusion in the list of prominent sightings. However, it is already alluded to in the references elsewhere in the article so a quick blurb might be added. —Fiziker t c 15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - or create a redirect to the Bigfoot article, which contains, or likely will soon contain, some amount of information about this episode. ClovisPt (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets General notability guideline criteria as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Untick (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Train wreck by which I mean I agree it should be merged to a short blurb in the Bigfoot article, but that may conflict with consensus over there. I dunno. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ged  UK  18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Bigfoot (this deserves a one- or two-line mention in that article, at most). On no account should this be deleted outright, since it is a plausible search term, and contains well-sourced material that should not be cut from Wikipedia.—If someone comes to Wikipedia to read about the Jacobs Creature, as is not totally implausible, I'd want them to find the scientific consensus, not a redlink.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like the article as is is a good candidate for merging to bigfoot. I’m not sure why WP:UNDUE is being waved around though, since that’s a policy regarding content of an article rather than whether or not an article should exist. Unless of course it’s being used in it’s capacity of being shorthand for “I don’t like fringe topics! Get rid of them! Rarrgh!” , which sadly seems to be the case a lot of the time these days. I've added a rescue tag in case anyone feels like expanding the article out to the point where it justifies a seperate existance - it seems like having a trawl through the history and reconsidering some of the removed material might be a place to start there. Artw (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The principles of WP:UNDUE that would determine whether something deserves even a short mention in a larger article obviously apply to whether it should have an article all to itself as well. If it's not worth mentioning on the main page, as was decided there, then making it a whole article unto itself is basically spinning off a POV-fork article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Fiziker's remark (above) is at odds with yours. Fiziker said the consensus was that it couldn't appear in the list of notable sightings, but might be worth a mention elsewhere in the article.  Would you agree with that?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be reached on the page that this does not qualify for being listed under the "Prominent reported sightings" section because it is not one of the top few most prominent sightings. There also appears to be a consensus that adding a section about juvenile Bigfoot that was solely dedicated to listing this and another non-notable sighting was just an attempt to circumvent this to get the person's favorite sighting included in the article. However, one of the sources in the "Bear" section is an news article about this sighting. The text does not say anything specific about this particular sighting--the reference is to show that some sightings are due to bears. I therefore think that there could be room to add a sentence that specifically mentions this as an example. This was only briefly talked about on the page so I don't believe consensus has been reached on this yet. —Fiziker t c 02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: clearly non-notable, and if it has already been discussed and rejected for inclusion on the Bigfoot page, there is no reason for a merge. Locke9k (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, there's every reason for a merge. Notability tells us what's suitable to have its own article, but it's certainly not a reason to remove reliably sourced material from Wikipedia.  (There are a few situations in which we might do that, but notability in itself certainly isn't one of them.) It follows that if the article's deleted, we have to decide where any reliably-sourced material should go.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every single piece of "reliably sourced material" has a place on Wikipedia, actually. Regardless, the only item that is well sourced is the fact that this has been explained as a bear sighting. Now, that information could certainly be expanded upon in the Bigfoot article, but you have to understand that given the context of hundreds of Bigfoot sightings, the Bigfoot article can not give each one attention, and instead focuses on the most notable.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Hopeless nonsense, the sort of thing that gives the more serious bigfoot investigators a bad name. Nothing here is reliably sourced beyond the existence of the imaghination of the people who developed the film. Dubious sourcing, as would be expected.DGG (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not agree that the Daily Mail source should be kept, DGG? It is a British national newspaper.—I do realise that it doesn't refer to the Jacobs Creature by that name, and that it implies the creature was a bear with severe mange, but nevertheless I think that source belongs somewhere in Bigfoot-related discussion.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail source is a part of the Bigfoot article and was prior to the creation of the Jacobs Creature article. Currently it is reference 30. —Fiziker t c 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is. That resolves that, then, but raises the question of why this sighting isn't mentioned in the Bigfoot article when there's a source.  Still, not a matter for AfD.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that something happened and can be sourced does not mean it is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the main topic. Yes, this happened. And thousands of other people saw things they think were Bigfoot too. We can't list them all. In the history of claimed sightings, this one just isn't notable for special notice. DreamGuy (talk)


 * Keep. I checked the history and looked at the article when it was at its longest. Some of that should not have been removed.  It has coverage is at least one newspaper, and MSNBC had an article about it from the associated press.  I added a link to the MSNBC article back to the page.  I also found it mentioned in the Field and Stream(major nature magazine) photo contest.  I believe that counts as notable coverage.  Shouldn't this be Jacobs' Creature?   D r e a m Focus  02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Field & Stream link given there says only that it was mentioned on a blog affiliated with the magazine and not the magazine itself. There's a huge difference. DreamGuy (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The competition would appear to make it quite notable, any idea wjhy that was removed? Artw (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * keep appears to be enough material to justify it's own article. Artw (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete and redirect to bigfoot (there's nothing of any value to be "merged.")Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 28 March 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.