Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan dogman


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Michigan dogman

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

This article looks, from the original source site, to be a hoax, but of course a notable hoax can still have an article. However, there's no article on Snopes, nothing on Google News, a couple of mentions in books of dubious merit, nothing on Scholar, and none of the regular Google hits (and certainly none of the supposed sources cited in the article) amounts to a reliable source. I believe this fails WP:V as we can't tell whether it's fact or fiction and have no credible sources to help us along the way. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the song release date (April 1, 1987) tells you all you need to know. Anecdotally, while I can attest to the Odawa/Chippewa shapeshifter reference as being legit, the claim that this is a longstanding Northwestern Michigan legend strikes me as dubious. I grew up not 50 miles from Traverse City and never once heard any such legend. Nor have I heard anything since moving back (and we've lived through 2 'x7 years since coming back). Delete as non notable hoax/self publicity attempt. Perhaps if the book had an Amazon rank higher than 1.2M ??? ++Lar: t/c 09:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that it's published by Amazon's self-publishing imprint is also pretty telling. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Almost by definition fantastic creatures are hoaxes. What makes them notable is the level of penetration the story has achieved in popular culture. There appears to have been a significant spike in interest in September 2007, however, I'm not finding too much after that and there are no notable secondary or tertiary sources. I would normally come down on this as a weak keep, however the fact that this looks like a case of viral marketing swings me the other way. See http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/exit-wolfman/ and http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gable-film/ Debate (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable hoax. JuJube (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn hoax. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax.-- danntm T C 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, hoax article. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:50, 7 May 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.