Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Mob


 * 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. Courcelles 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Monster Mob

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay, something made up one night, see WP:NOT (prod removed) Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, author admits in deprod edit summary that this is a neologism; only source is a joke article in The Onion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Author refutes assertion that term itself is a neologism, cites October 7, 1919 Article from Atlanta Constitution entitled "NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON"

Author also cites, in Wikipedia entry, well-documented evidence (in seven instances) the phenomenon/plot device the term describes does, in fact, exist. Author also refutes assertion that article cited in The Onion can be regarded only as a joke, and thus not as a source of the idea of "Monster Mobs". This article is piece of satire based on the aforementioned well-documented examples of this phenomenon/plot device. To assert that this article is can be considered nothing more than a joke is to suggest not only that the staff at The Onion are not serious, credible, and legitimate writers, but that satire itself is not a credible part of literature, when satire, as a genre, has earned great credibility by enhancing it.

Also, the phrase "Monster Mob", although used in a different context for a different meaning, is not technically a "neologism", as it is the name of an established company, MonsterMob Group Plc, http://www.monstermobgroup.plc.uk

I have created this page because, this phrase has been insufficiently attributed to a plot device (and phenomenon) that has been part of the narratives of multiple cultures for hundreds of years. While this is often referred to as by the terms similar in effect to "A group of torch-wielding villagers", this is not necessarily accurate, as not all mobs that pursue monsters are equipped with torches.

Likewise, a sufficient wikipiedia entry does not exist to describe this phenomenon/plot device. The phrase angry mob redirects to Ochlocracy, which implies that such a mob is a de facto form of government. However, these types of mobs are seldom driven by desire for governance, but rather for a desire for vigilantism.

This concept has been well-documented in various forms of media, in various cultures, for hundreds of years, especially in supernatural folklore. Do delete this article is, in effect, that deny that this well-documented phenomenon and plot device exists. Part of an encyclopedia's purpose is to convey ideas to those who wish to learn more about them.

Uses of the term "Monster Mob" found in search:

"NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON", Atlanta Constitution - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 7, 1919 --MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC) — MonkeyPundit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Further Documented Use of the term "Monster Mob". "Monster Mob" used on page 51 of the 2009 biography of Abraham Lincoln entitled One Man Great Enough, written by John C. Waugh. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC) — MonkeyPundit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Maybe merge this with Ochlocracy, it contains info not found there. Maybe keep as separate article. MonkeyPundit, you aren't helping yourself by defending The Onion's journalism. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Onion's Journalism I'm not defending The Onion as journalism. I'm defending it as literature. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC) — MonkeyPundit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - sources insufficient to establish notability that is separate from large, angry mobs in general.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Monster delete. "Monster mob" is not in itself a distinct term of art, just a random bit of hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Citation [1] is absolutely referring to "monster mob" in the sense of a mob that is large in size, not a mob to deal with a monster as claimed, and I'd bet reference [2] uses it in the same context. The rest is WP:SYN and WP:MADEUP. The Onion as a source? Ye gads. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, MonkeyPundit, please top removing the SPA tags, as you did here and here I have re-added them and removing them again WILL be considered a refactoring of talk page comments. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:42, 10 December 2010 (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.