Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melon heads


 * 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. Stronger, multiple sources were introduced during AfD, although it still appears to be a magnet for vandalism. David Fuchs ( talk ) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Melon heads

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hoax article? Links and one reference all seem highly questionable. Cool story, though. Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to delete the melonhead article you may as well delete bigfoot, lochness monster, chupacabra, aliens. Just because it is not a world renowned myth doesn't make it less important or relevant. Most Ohioans are very familiar with this story and it would be shame to railroad it off of wiki. It is not a hoax entry, it is a vital part of Northeast Ohio's mythical heritage. Feel free to email your questions. per Mmoorhead1207@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.38.220 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a local urban legend. I think it's fake, but it is somewhat important. Here's a few links on it.

http://deadohio.com/MelonHeads.htm

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oZhsre-pE14J:www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Lake/melonheads.html+site:www.forgottenoh.com+melon+heads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://www.geocities.com/son_of_pauly/melonheads/melonhead.html

http://www.weirdus.com/stories/OH04.asp

http://creepycleveland.blogspot.com/search/label/melonheads

VinTheMetalhed (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those seems to be a reliable source, however. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they're enough to establish the existence of the urban legend. And we can have articles about urban legends, as long as they're clearly presented as such. Zagalejo^^^ 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I agree with Zagalejo, in principle. However, the article still has to meet WP:NOTE and WP:RS criteria. A cursory bit of research on the book they provide is inconclusive as to the reliability of it as a source. And if this is a widespread legend, it must be reported in more than the local alternative rag. I'm positive that Ohio has a large-ish newspaper in that general area, as do Connecticut and Michigan. In the case of Connecticut, there certainly should be a bit of newsprint about it, since the story apparently dates back almost 150 years (or is it 50? The article is unclear)... And, honestly, if it's really as well-known as is claimed, I'm surprised Snopes hasn't heard of it... With more reliable sources, I'll gladly consider changing from Delete, as I tend to have a bit of an inclusionist bent... -- Lewellyn talk 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem citing a referenceable urban legend, no matter how oddball. However, unreliable internet sources about an alleged urban legend do not constitute an actual urban legend; they constitute an internet hoax that suggests an urban legend. There may be a root truth to the internet stuff, but the references aren't strong enough to back it up. Quite a bit of the information in the article isn't even backed up by the links and single reference. Another point: might be worthwhile to give the article history some scrutiny. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, this isn't an internet hoax pretending to be an urban legend. For one thing, the Melon Heads are briefly mentioned in this 2000 article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. (I can access the whole article on Newsbank. It's just a sentence – "She will share the legend of the 'melonheads' that haunt Wisner Rd in Kirtland." – but it proves that it's an actual piece of Ohio folklore.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. ..but the article you mention is about a woman gives "Ghost walks," not about the actual urban legend. Did she acquire her information from the web as a way to bolster her program, or is she retelling an actual urban legend (did the chicken come before the egg?) Once again, reliability is a problem. ..--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I don't know. I'll keep looking around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Not to be difficult, but are you able to find anything else substantial? A sentence in a newspaper article which appears to be lacking in verification of the legends they're discussing isn't really much "proof" of anything, other than someone apparently is paid to tell the story. It also seems to contradict the Wikipedia article slightly... Still looking for a reliable source, myself... -- Lewellyn talk 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only other things I've found so far are reviews of the Weird US books, which list the Melonhead stories as one of the highlights. I'm still digging around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The most substantial that I've found so far, myself, is this set of posts to the Creepy Cleveland blog. Certainly not RS material... -- Lewellyn talk 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pgagnon999. Ford MF (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

--Janeyvon (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)I live within 10 minutes of Kirtland, Ohio and we, as teenagers, did go melonhead hunting in the late 70's. I know teenagers still continue to this day, so it is an urban legend. But, the information I found on Wikipedia about Dr. Crow is new to me. . . we never had this much detail!
 * To be a bit more plain about my remarks RE: the article's history; you'll find that the article has attracted quite a bit of attention from unreg. users, some of whom have a history of vandalism or quasi-vandalism--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had noted that, as well as plenty of overt vandalism on the article. Also, in all of the unreliable information I'm finding, supposedly this Dr. Crowe operated simultaneously in Michigan and Ohio. I find this doubtful, and in line with an internet-legend which people are trying their hardest to turn viral. Also, I cannot even find any sources older than about 8 years, with no indication of the originator. I'm starting to suspect the story-teller from the Plain Dealer article... There's certainly a lot about these melon-heads on the web, but unfortunately, little of it's even slightly "reliable". And even less pre-dates this article... Due to the fact that there is nothing reliable, let alone from before this article's creation (nevermind the edit history...), I'm sticking to Delete... -- Lewellyn talk 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find this Holland Sentinel article. It's partially sourced to Weird Michigan, but it also contains some original material. One of the locals quoted in the article notes that, in his day, the kids used to refer to the Melon Heads as "wobble heads"... So, that's something to search for. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more promising; seems marginally notable anyway. If the bunk and vandal-fiction is edited out of the article, there just might be a full paragraph based on what is actually sourceable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's highly educational and encyclopedic--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I chopped out a lot of the BS, and included some newspaper refs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job :) I'll upgrade to Weak Keep based on your edits. However, the article should probably be locked down or closely monitored: it's a real kaka magnet.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, I don't know about keeping the Kirtland Ohio section. The references for that section are way too sketchy. Revise to Weak Delete unless the references can be upgraded into something reliable. Alternately, you could just mention something about the original Michigan urban legends spreading via the Internet and Sterling Publications books. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find a Plain Dealer article noting that the Ohio stories are popular on the Internet. So regardless of whether it's all a "fake" urban legend or a real one, we do have a reliable source saying that the stories exist and are circulating online. I think that should be good enough to save the article. Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I maintain my weak delete, for now. We currently have 2 articles from the same publication (The Plain Dealer), Weird Michigan/US (and articles sourcing it), and the Free Times (which feels it is valid to source messageboard comments, so I'm dubious on the rest of the article). So, there's currently 1 reliable source, and 1 dubious source (unless someone can shed light on the reliability of the Sterling publications...) Policy tends to dictate "multiple" reliable sources... As I mentioned, I tend to have an inclusionist bent, but if an urban legend hasn't even caused a blip on the Snopes.com radar, then is Wikipedia really the place for it? -- Lewellyn talk 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the Holland Sentinel article does contain some original material. I don't think we should worry too much about Snopes; there are any number of reasons why they haven't talked about the legend (it's too local in scope; nobody really takes it seriously enough for Snopes to research it; etc.) As for the Sterling Publications, I think they should be sufficient to document the existence of the myth. I own a couple books in the Weird... series, and am interested in these kinds of stories in general. I'll admit that the editors do take a light-hearted approach to their subjects, and aren't concerned with debunking the stories, but I've never known them to completely fabricate an urban legend. Zagalejo^^^ 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * RE the Free Times, I think it's fair to cite a message board in that context. The author is just giving an example of the kinds of stories that are going around. And he's not trying to present the stories as true; he clearly refers to it as a "myth". Zagalejo^^^ 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Chardon, Ohio, library is fairly close to me, so within the week, I'll check with reference librarians to see if there are any published sources mentioning melonheads, including those not of a regional nature. At the very least, the text of this article should be merged into Chardon Township, Geauga County, Ohio (not Kirtland, Ohio, since the cemetery in question is in Chardon Township), although that would leave the text the legend as heard in other locations orphaned.  As of now: weak keep. Mapsax (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: An existing urban legend verifiable to several distinct sources. The primary grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are verifiability and notability. The available sources confirm both of these. The truth of the urban legend is irrelevant (most urban legends are largely, if not totally, false), what is important is that they are a part of popular culture. If you were to delete an urban legend just because it's about something made up then you might as well delete all urban legends as well as most classical myths. - perfectblue (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Contention isn't with the existence or hokey source of the urban legend, it's with the reliability of the sources that report the urban legend. I.e., is it an urban legened, or is it something invented by internet bloggers and a single publisher? Is it really an urban legend, and to what extent? For instance, using your example above, I could invent a bogus Greek myth, paste it on the net or publish it, and someone else could edit it into the Wiki article on Greek mythology, but that wouldn't make it a real Greek myth. So far, all but one of the Michigan references are sketchy at best, and all of the Ohio Melon heads references are equally sketchy. I'd like the legend to have a place here; its a fun story, but we are an encyclopedia. . .and we need good sources to maintain credibility as one. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This actually works both ways. Fakelore is just as valid on Wikipedia as [Folklore]]. If this is a hoax, a fake urban myth, then it appears to hav been widely distributed enough to be notable in itself and therefore sufficiently notable to be included. In this case, the only point of contention would be the entries framing. You'd need to WP:V it is as a web hoax. A local paper saying that it's fake would be sufficient to rate at least a reference that people thought that it was fake in the entry, and if it provided evidence to back it then I'd have no problem with the entry saying that it was a fake myth. My point however remains that if its a genuine myth then it's notable because of its coverage, and if its a fake myth it's still notable for the same reasons.


 * At the end of the day, and in the very best of situations, this would still be an urban myth and nothing more. It doesn't need peer review reliability. Only a couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable enough to report on the contents of the myths, and pretty much any well urban legend book could so that. - perfectblue (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I agree with that. Even fakelore still needs to meet Wiki notability criterion, and I'm not sure that the Ohio Melon heads quite make it there. They may get there. . .in a few more years of viral transimission via the internet, an article about them might meet the notability criterion for a Melonhead article (or mention in an article) about internet hoxes or internet fakelore. But I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be one of the primary transmitters of marginal (at best) fakelore. The Melonheads should arrive at their own notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again, I don't know that there are even a "couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable." --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll note that most complaints (at least mine...) haven't been on the notability of legends; solely how reliable the sources are, and general notability of this particular legend. I'm upgrading to weak keep, based on the latest changes, and the offer by Mapsax to visit the local libraries. Even if Mapsax is told by the reference librarian, "Hah! I know the legend; it was brought here in 19XX by XYZ. Here's all of the documentation I have," there's still notability, as well as the sources likely being reliable. On the other hand, if the reference librarian is unfamiliar with the legend, I think we can safely assume that we've been had and remove at least the Ohio section. (Yes, I trust reference librarians to know of local legends; they get some mighty odd requests...) Mapsax, if the librarian confirms the myth and provides RS, can you ask her/him to point you to relevant images which could be used as fair use on Wikipedia? I suspect that you'll have access to things we'd never see otherwise... -- Lewellyn talk 10:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The research is held up a bit (Chardon happens to be the unofficial lake-effect snow capital of Ohio, and it just got hit), but I'll do my best. Full disclosure: I became interested in the legend in Ohio when I heard it, having just heard about it in Michigan -- not in the Holland area, but in southeast Berrien County, a little down the Lake Michigan shore.  That reference, however, turns up nothing on the internet, and, both from memory and research today, locals seem not to agree even on the location, citing two cemeteries/churches with similar names, this one and this one.  Just to muddy things up.  :-)  Mapsax (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Edit, put here to keep relevant comments together It looks like there is an instance of this in Berrien cited online here, but refers to yet another location, the shoreline dunes between Stevensville and Bridgman. Mapsax (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. per WP:HEY. The article needs work, but the topic is notable and verifiable.  The urban legend is described in several of the "Weird US" series of books: , , ... and here's a story about it in a local newspaper: .  I'm not digging deeper into this, but with finding those print-published non-web sources in just a few minutes, I'm convinced this is not a hoax and is WP:N & WP:V enough to keep the article.  (If any editors of the article are reading this, you're welcome to make use of these references to improve the page.)  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - I was asked by an editor to review the sources a bit more, because all three of the books found are by the same publisher. So I read the Holland Sentinel newspaper article in full, and it did seem like most of the info was from the book series; but there were also a few names of people relating stories that weren't from the book; it's hard to tell though.  I searched a bit more and found another article, in the Cleveland Free Times, a weekly paper: .  That article doesn't mention the book, but the history is similar enough it seems like it could be from the book; on the other hand the paper also mentioned some other people who said they'd heard the stories. One of the papers asked the Lakewood Town Manager and the other paper spoke with the Kirtland Fire Chief who said he'd heard the stories when he was a teenager.  If those are valid interviews -if those same interviewees are not named in the books, then that makes those newspaper stories independent and reliable for keeping the article.  If it turns out that the books name the same individuals making the reports as the  in the newspaper articles, then that might show that the sources are not independent.  As far as I can tell so far, they seem independent, so I'll leave my "keep" comment.  I'm open to changing that though, if more info is provided showing the sources are not independent.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Lakewood Town Manager and the Kirtland Fire Chief are not named in Weird US or Weird Michigan. I'm not 100% sure about Weird Ohio, since I can't get a preview of the Melon Heads section with Google Books (but if I'm near a Barnes and Noble, I can probably check, because they always carry these titles). Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a copy of Weird Ohio. The bad news: The four pages covering the subject look to lift text directly from the websites cited at the top of this article (what a surprise to see my own words, since I contributed to Forgotten Ohio).  The good news: One of the sources, not listed above, is entitled "Solving the Melon Head Mystery", and is available here, in two pages.  The author (Ryan Orvis) said on the second page that he "went to the library", and and since the cite appears to be recent, any research that he did probably would be the same that I would do on Monday, when the reference librarian today stated that the employee who would know the most about it would be in.  I think that we have enough substance now!  Anyone with more editing experience than I have want to go to it?  :-) Mapsax (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the great research & debate that went into this discussion. After a recent negative experience with Wikipedia, all of this makes me feel right at home & hopeful about this medium :) As for the Melon heads, I no longer object to the article itself; my only beef (notability & reliability of sources) is with the Ohio melonheads section. That said, I rest my case: let community concensus move the article forward.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article was originally highly unsourced, sloppy, full of apocrypha, and tended to refer to unsubstantiated urban legends as if they were fact or rumor.  Now it has photographs, several reliable sources, is much better-organized, and is generally neat.  In short, it's gone from being completely unencyclopedic to marginally encyclopedic, all thanks to this AfD.  Thanks, Pgagnon999!  -- Banazir (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phoenix  -  wiki  23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is now fully cited by sources that easily meet wp:rs. I still think it sounds pretty stupid, but at my age, lots of notable things sound pretty stupid.  Especially rap ;)  Pharmboy (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Keeping this seems to be an excellent indication of the nonsensical nature of our present notability rules. perhaps we should redefine N as really meaning actual importance, and then, field by field, define importance. Even the Plain Dealer sometimes covers absolute local trivia, but I dont see why this implies we should be follow every one of their errors. DGG (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, because of Weird US, it does have nationwide recognition among those interested in these kinds of things. Zagalejo^^^ 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to DGG I agree that the currently policies are a little vague, but this is better than policies that are so rigid that you can't apply common sense. I am probably 80% on the delete vote of AFDs it seems, but if something is truly on the borderline (ie: not spam/vanity/hoax), I think it is better to keep than delete.  It is a 'complete' vs. 'overly broad' debate issue, I suppose. Pharmboy (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, you do realize that what you say would effectively mean the end of most sports and music related entries and almost all TV related entries. Let me give you a case study: Football (US football, not soccer or rugby football). This sport is basically a US only game with no real international importance. It is followed by fewer that 50% of America's 300+ million population who in turn make up a fraction of the worlds 6+ billion population. The vast majority of international TV stations don't cover it, the vast majority of the world's population don't watch it. 9/10 people in the world proably couldn't even tell you which month the Superbowl was in, let alone who won it. Football barely even makes the headlines outside of the sports pages and it hasn't changed the world any. Therefore under your notability criteria all football entries including players, etc, would be removed from Wikipedia. Things can be notable and specialist at the same time. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is pretty common in local paranormal circles, which is how it wound up in Weird U.S.. I think that its inclusion in the book should establish it as a real urban legend, not an internet hoax that was recently invented. BTW, here is the google books result, where the pages in Weird U.S. are visible: 69.221.152.25 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you even consider deleting this article? The legend is found in many books in including "Weird Michigan" and there's even several local newspaper articles (at least in Michigan) about the story. Since Wikipedia is one of the biggest resources for information online, why not keep the stories on here for others to see? It just doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.250.194 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept: (restated). Regardless of whether Melon Heads are real, are folklore or are fakelore, they have clearly penetrated the popular consciousness of the region and which has survived "in the wild" for several years demonstrating that it has staying power, too. They are referenced multiple times across multiple sources which treat it as a myth or an urban legend rather than POV pushing it as being real. This checks all of the boxes for a notable and verifiable myth.


 * On the Hoax issue, it is actually irrelevant whether or not this started out as folklore or fakelore so long as any claims about its status are addressed using verifiable sources. Both folklore and fakelore are equally acceptable on Wikipedia so long as notability is demonstrated, which it has been via the array of different sources available.


 * On notability. Notability is relative, not absolute. If notability were absolute then practically nothing would be notable. There are 6+ billion people on this planet and asking for something to be notable to more than a handful of them (absolute notability) is frankly asking rather a lot. Micheal Jackson and the Beatles would squeeze through, and so would the War on Terror, but practically no American politician below the level of president would. In fact, using absolute notability, most Americans states would not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Melon heads are notable on the grounds that they have good coverage in the media and in urban myth circles. The myth has propagated and survived without a factual event behind it and it has spawned a pop culture belief of its own that exists independently of other urban myths (notability is its own, rather than one which is inherited from another myth). Take this myth and put it in its native environment, and it is notable. Therefore it is notable overall.


 * On the reliability issue of sources, I seriously have to ask why people are raising the red flag here? This is a myth being treated as a myth, there are no extraordinary claims being made so no extraordinary proof is required. A source simply needs to be reliable enough to report on the contents of the myth, not to verify the myth as being true to science or history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but absurd claims require only proof that an absurd claim was made because they are only verifying that the claim was made, not that the claim is true.


 * Maybe if this was being put forward as science it would need a better source, but a myth being treated as a myth require only sources that are WP:RS as far as myths are concerned. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (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.