Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mogollon 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   keep per additional references provided.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mogollon Monster

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

Creature is not notable: the only references I could find are a few hits on AZcentral.com, see this search. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please read "The Mogollon Monster, Arizona's Bigfoot" by Susan A. Farnsworth published in 2001 or "Weird Arizona" written by Wesley Treat, Mark Moran (Editor), Mark Sceurman (Editor). Also, read more articles by following these links...

(talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/environment/144966 (This article was done by a large television station in Arizona).
 * http://www.azcentral.com/news/columns/articles/0304clay04.html (This article was published in the "Arizona Republic" which is a statewide newspaper.
 * http://www.wickenburg-az.com/?p=45 (The artical was written by a former "Arizona Republic" writer, now retired.
 * http://www.dolanellis.com/original_songs/wildfire.htm (The linked song writer even wrote a song about this creature).
 * The first link you provide is to an article that is barely serious; the second is by a guy who doesn't even believe it himself; the third is pretty much a joke (I mean, it's obviously intended as a joke). The fourth? A personal website that claims, probably correctly, that a guy wrote a song in which he mentioned this supposed monster (and offers the free download). None of it adds up to significant discussion in reliable sources of either the fictional monster or the popular belief therein. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge Seems to be fairly notable based on sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge where? Either way, it needs discussion, not just mention. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you Doc. But there is a book on it, and it wasn't published by Harper Collins, but seems semi-legit. Maybe DGG can let us know if Southwest Publishing is just a Vanity press... But even discounting the book, the monstah is mentioned now and again and seems like a semi-notable "urban myth", if you will. It's not a monster story with a whole lot of notability, but it meets my, admittedly low, standards unless someone can convince me otherwise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also fearsome critters and list of monsters. We like these things at least as much as the 475th Family Guy episode and the Featured list of Claw Boys Claw singles. What can I tell you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look CoM, if it's not a card-carrying union member, and it hasn't made the front page of the New York Times, it doesn't matter, OK? Hey, I like urban myths as much as the next guy, but this one has no reliable coverage, unfortunately. Maybe I can convince you by offering a bribe? A nice shot of cheap whiskey, perhaps a Mitch Morgan? Sorry, I appreciate your zeal, but this one doesn't meet my equally low standards. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep. If repeated reports of such a creature can be documented to Wikipedia standards of verifiability, then it would deserve an article.  I say "if" because only one reported reported sighting (in 1903) is adequately documented in the article (by reference to the published work Weird Arizona).  A second sighing in the 1940s is unreferenced.  The third on the list, sightings by Apaches, are given a reference to something called "3TV"; I assume this is a TV station, but as it stands, this reference is unverifiable.  For a verifiable reference, we need either a published work or a website link to some reliable source such as a legitimate news-gathering organization.  Whoever put in the reference to the Journal of Prevarication should look up "prevarication" in the dictionary; its author, Jim Cook, advertises himself as the "Official State Liar of Arizona".  We don't need documentation of the creature's existence, just documentation of repeated reports.  After all, Wikipedia has (and should keep) articles on fairies and leprechauns.  Plazak (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairies and leprechauns have lots of reliable sources. This one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Jedijoe82 has improved the refs (especially to the online version of the Arizona Daily Star), and with the addition of the "Urban legend" section, I am persuaded that the subject has enough verifiable independent sources to have its own wiki article. Plazak (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are far less notable articles on Wikipedia I don't see any reason to remove it. In fact some of the editors have a hair trigger when it comes to the delete button their standards are not everyones. --Timpicerilo (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Has not demonstrated notability for its own article. We deleted Jacobs creature via AFD -- another supposed Bigfoot sighting -- for the same reasons, and that one was slightly more notable than this one (and thus gets a glancing mention in the main Bigfoot article. Being a regular at that article I can state that this one wouldn't be mentioned even there by the standards we've established (following WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE), so it obviously doesn't deserve a page of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bigfoot, which I had boldy done when it was first created. It's non-notable, fails WP:V, but still a plausible search term. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notable based on sources. jedijoe82 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strong, the recommendation of deletion is ridiculous--Timpicerilo (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's popularity stems from its diversity- this wealth of information comes from a wide variety of individuals knowledgeable in their contributions. If we eliminate articles because a few don't believe they're worthy it becomes detrimental to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Certainley at some point a line must be drawn when someone starts putting in articles about what they had for lunch but that is not the case here.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The character/fictional entity has been mentioned in various published books a couple of which count as notable mention.    D r e a m Focus  22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Dream Focus has it right. The appropriate GBooks link is [hhttp://books.google.com/books?spell=1&lr=&q=%22Mogollon+Monster%22&btnG=Search+Books], where I see, besides its use in two novels by the established horror fiction author Bentley Little  & an academic reference in Abstracts of Folklore Studies & inclusion in some Arizona tour guides. Southwestern Publications is, however, a small almost extinct vanity publisher. I think it is indeed a local legend, though I would reduce the article to  size, eliminating the long quotations. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with DDGs recommendation. Notability has been establish, with significant references.  Click23 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 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.