Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp 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 no consensus. We have 6 keep vs. 4 delete / userfy opinions. This is more a matter of editorial judgment than of policy, so I can't decide this one way or the other by fiat. However, if the article is not improved, another call to drain the swamp may be made in the future.  Sandstein  15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Swamp monster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a collection of listcruft that fails WP:GNG. The "description" section is full of WP:OR. Too vague to be a redirect and there are no direct title matches to justify a DAB page. Best to delete it and let search function do its job. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is WP:CRUFTCRUFT – empty name-calling. What we have here is a broad concept article which is sensible in this case per WP:CONCEPTDAB which states, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it..."  There's a clearly a variety of notable swamp monsters including the Honey Island Swamp monster; Swamp Thing; Jimmy Carter's swamp rabbit; &c.  We need a page of this sort to help readers find what they are looking for. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not seeing sources to pass WP:GNG for the concept itself. If the purpose is to aid navigation, why not create a simple list article such as List of swamp monsters? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident involved an ordinary swamp rabbit, not a legendary or invented "monster". So that example is irrelevant to the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Move to user- or draftspace: concept is simple WP:DICDEF – a monster that lives in a swamp – fleshed out with WP:OR. Rest of article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC) per 's recommendation)
 * And a Milk bottle is a bottle used for milk, a Needle threader is a device for threading needles, and an Oven bag is a bag for roasting food in an oven. The fact that one can give a short definition of a topic does not make an article on the topic a dictionary definition. WP:DICDEF is meant for articles that are about the page title viewed as a phrase, rather than the concept referred to by that title. --Lambiam 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That argument might be valid if there were enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. I am not seeing those, and WP:GHITS alone (as below) doesn't prove notability. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a convincing argument, especially when the pages linked are themselves poorly-sourced and marked as needing various types of cleanup. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I happen to expect that a diligent search will find many reliable sources. That expectation does not stem from simply counting ghits, but is informed by the observation that a Google book search yields many non-fiction titles discussing swamp monsters. But in any case, the criteria of WP:DICDEF do not involve the amount of coverage. My "argument" was simply that the purview of WP:DICDEF does not include the article under discussion, so that an appeal to WP:DICDEF has no merit. --Lambiam 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DICDEF addresses the depth of coverage – in this case, the question is whether any RSes examine the concept of "swamp monster" itself, or whether they only use the term. Unfortunately, an expectation of finding many reliable sources is not itself proof of notability. Any suggestions for actual reliable sources would of course be welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The initial page content (unsourced) was in fact accompanied by this obvious definition: "A swamp monster is a monster that lives in swamps". The page seems to have been created almost as a joke that subsequent editors have taken far too seriously. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is entirely reasonable to have articles on various archetypal types of monsters, like Bug-eyed monster, Lake monster, Sea monster and Tickle monster. A Google book search on |%22Swamp+creature%22&tbm=bks ["Swamp monster"|"Swamp creature" ] yields very many hits – mostly fiction, but many others describing long-standing myths grounded in a Jungian archetypal fear. --Lambiam 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A possibly useful supplementary source for the comics section:  --Lambiam 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep You can rename it to have "list of" in the title if you want. These things do get coverage, and the article links to various pages about different swamp monsters.   D r e a m Focus  04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy or draftify for the time being While I don't doubt the notability of this topic in theory, virtually everything in the article at present is unambiguous OR and much of it probably cannot be verified (several of the examples have probably never been referred to as "swamp monsters" outside Wikipedia). I therefore doubt anything here needs to be saved per WP:PRESERVE and think all of it could be safely removed from public view per WP:TNT, but if that's not done then it should at least be taken out of the mainspace so editors who are knowledgeable and motivated enough to improve the article can continue to do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable option. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Cowblood: I should clarify that I noticed this AFD because it was posted at the Article Rescue Squadron, a page I recently added to my watchlist. I noticed several members of that project had showed up at this AFD and !voted keep, but without actually editing the article itself. I've also noticed a kinda disturbing trend where articles this project "rescues" from AFD wind up either languishing for years, or the delete !voters wind up having to fix the articles themselves after the AFD closed as "no consensus", with little or no input from ARS. I'd therefore wonder if User:Andrew Davidson would like to adopt this page in his user space and bring it up to par himself, seen as he saw it as meriting of the efforts of ARS; I'm sure User:Dream Focus and User:Lambian would also be happy to help. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I am not sure what draftifying the article will accomplish considering it would need a full rewrite anyway (even the sourced sentences use plenty of WP:SYNTH), if people think that the content of the article can be supported by reliable sources, then that is also an option.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree, but several other editors appear to believe, or at least appear to claim to believe, otherwise: that some or most of the content in this article is salvageable. I have seen these same users !vote down AFDs of articles with similar problems, then once the AFDs were closed leave it up to the "TNT delete" !voters to fix the problems. Telling them that if they disagree with what everyone else sees in the article, the burden is on them to fix it, seems like a better solution than trying to get more people to !vote for a TNT deletion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hijiri 88, keep your nonsense accusations where they belong, don't drag the argument into an AFD. Not every article needs to be improved upon, and there is no requirement for anyone in any wikiproject to do so before commenting in an AFD.    D r e a m Focus  02:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * " nonsense accusations"? What do you mean? You didn't do anything to fix Mottainai's problems (I have been doing that); Andrew didn't do anything to fix Korean influence on Japanese culture (Nishidani and I, and some others who didn't participate in the AFD, did that) or Tanka prose (I and some other non-parties to the AFD did that); neither of you have done anything to improve this article (I've done more, but I'm definitely not going to commit to fixing it myself). Ironically, "nonsense accusations" is itself a nonsense accusation, and I would ask you to strike it per WP:NPA and please remain focused on content: are you interested in "draftifying" this article so you and the other ARS members can "rescue" it, or are you just here so you can "win" this "battle" by keeping the page in the mainspace despite the fact that every single sentence of it is OR? Because the latter is definitely not what the purpose of WP:ARS is supposed to be. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not here to win, the wikiproject is not there to canvas. The article is fine.  Not every single article is improved upon, because it doesn't always need to be.  Stop paging others and expecting them to "fix" whatever you imagine is wrong with this article.   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that having more time now, I have done some work on the article, linking to various examples in folklore/legend/mythology.  D r e a m Focus  03:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy/draftify per Hijiri, if someone feels motivated to fix this mess of OR/SYNTH and indiscriminate, poorly referenced/justified "examples". Failing that, delete, because it is completely unsuitable for mainspace in its current form. -- Begoon 05:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify this is clearly a list article, and always has been, how about we rename it to List of fictional monsters said to live in swamps? Google news search for "swamp monster" in quotes and you get 2,070 results, and without the quotes 35,400.  Google book search for it in quotes and you get 9,520 results and without them 32,700 results.  Google book search for "Swamp monster" and "folklore", both in quotes, gets 6,610 results.  That's a lot to search through.  Clearly though there is a lot of mention of monsters in swamps throughout history.  So the list article is valid.   D r e a m Focus  05:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a change of topic? The article has clearly always been an attempt to describe the concept of "swamp monsters" (which is a real term, and no one is arguing otherwise), that happened to consist entirely of OR. Also, while the article before today, especially after my edit yesterday, could have been argued to be primarily about fictional monsters, you just came from adding a section about folklore (and mythology): such creatures may not actually exist, but there is a big difference between a mythological/folkloristic creature and a "fictional monster". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has mentioned briefly what a swamp monster was, then a long list of things. Its always been like that, even without my bit added.  Someone just forgot to put the word "list" in the title.   D r e a m Focus  06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the time of its original creation and for at least two months after, the article did not even contain a list. At the time immediately before the AFD (I haven't followed your recent edits, so this may have changed), the first four paragraphs (disregarding the lead sentence) were not a list. This all has nothing to do with the AFD, mind: what you are proposing is the deletion of this article and the creation of an entirely new article on a different, howsoever related, topic. If you want to "adopt" the page in your user space and turn it into that, that's fine: I suggested you or one of the other ARS members adopt it and do what you feel it needs to be fixed yesterday, so clearly I would have no problem with that, as long as you stop adding OR and confusing mythology with fiction. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was created in 05:03, 28 August 2006‎. For most of its existence its had lists of swamp monsters.  Legends, myths, and folklore are all fiction.  They were created to entertain.  The small bit in the Description section still mentions examples, which is the same information on the lists.  There is very little of the article which is not just a list. And WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There are reliable sources referenced already that talk about swamp monsters.   D r e a m Focus  14:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So... are you going to blank everything in the article that is not reliably sourced until you can find sources for it? Your first string of edits earlier today, which were textbook OR, do not look promising. And, again, you seem to be arguing for a complete overhaul of the concept of this article, which is essentially deletion and creation of a separate article, but arbitrarily maintaining the page history and past versions of a different article. I am not experienced enough in AFDs to say whether that is a violation of any kind of guideline or not (though no one ever called me out for what happened at uta monogatari), but it seems pointless at best, even if not technically prohibited. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at other list articles. They don't need a source for every single entry on them, as long as the information is in the linked to article.  Nothing I did was original research.  People add things to list articles all the time, because they belong there, it not original research.  You obviously don't know what you are doing, so kindly just stop arguing nonstop all over the place.  I have been in plenty of AFD before where the problem was people couldn't understand it was a list article, unless you added the word "list" to the name of the article, then it was fine.   D r e a m Focus  16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not gonna touch the ad hominem except to say that I clearly know more about mythology and folklore than you so the projection is amusing. Anyway, per WP:LISTN, a list should be on a category that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Going to a Wikipedia article, checking that it is a "monster" in some way associated with "swamps", and extrapolating from that that it is a "swamp monster" is original research, and if we posted that to WP:NORN literally everyone would agree with me. Your retroactively justifying this act by proposing we change the name of the article to "List of fictional monsters said to live in swamps" does not change the fact that you explicitly stated in the article that the Lernean hydra is an example of a "swamp monster". (BTW, my Greek mythology is a little rusty, but at least the way you wrote it, "said to live in swamps" still doesn't cover the hydra.) Again, if you want to userfy the page to radically reorient it by removing all the non-example content and make it into a simple list of monsters associated with swamps, I have no problem with that, but trying to retroactively recharacterize what the rest of us have been discussing is not cool. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Google news search for "swamp monster" in quotes and you get 2,070 results" - Google news search for "cloudy weekend" in quotes and you get 4,130 results. This kind of "statistic" is meaningless, and I do wish you wouldn't imply that it has some bearing on notability of an article (not that we were discussing that anyway...). -- Begoon 06:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly reread what I wrote. I said "Clearly though there is a lot of mention of monsters in swamps throughout history.  So the list article is valid."   D r e a m Focus  06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. I "read what you wrote" just fine, and look forward to the upcoming List of cloudy weekends throughout history, which is clearly valid. -- Begoon 06:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I. Once again, WP:GHITS are meaningless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Similar lists to this one include: List of reported lake monsters, List of Scottish loch-monsters, List of legendary creatures from Japan, List of alleged extraterrestrial beings, List of cryptids, List of Greek mythological creatures, etc. To get an idea on what to name it, and show how other list articles are.   D r e a m Focus  05:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those have "fictional" in the title, though, and all were apparently created to be lists, not articles on popular culture topics that included lists. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between modern fiction and fiction from thousands of years ago.  D r e a m Focus  06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? That's news to me, and will no doubt come as a shock to the folks at WP:RELIGION and WP:MYTH. In all seriousness, fiction is normally invented from whole cloth by an author with the intent of entertaining (or educating or other) an audience, who also recognize it as such, and is different (as a general rule) from myth/folklore in conception, content and origin. Whether a fictional event might have actually happened and a mythic one might not is really irrelevant to the distinction. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you are volunteering to do the work of completely reorienting the article into a list of fictional monsters, in your user space, and then submitting it for approval, that's great. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep seems in line with similar pages. Rename to "list of...' if need be.  Nessie (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A simple rename does not address the issue that none of the article is referenced, and the list is largely incorrect about what monsters are actually "swamp" monsters. It uses the Gill-man as its main example, but it is not a swamp monster, just a fish-man. Other errors abound, due to it using entirely original research.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are problems on any list, you can edit to fix them. You don't delete an article because of problems which can be repaired.   D r e a m Focus  22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But you are the one saying the article should be deleted and replaced with a different article, not me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the content is the same, so its not a different article. It has been a list article for most of the 12 years its existed.   D r e a m Focus  23:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And what to do with all the OR? Just let it stand and hope that someone cleans it up later? I know AFD is not cleanup, but in this case literally every single sentence in the article at the time of nomination was OR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly look at other lists on Wikipedia. If the information is in the article linked to, they don't need to bother copying a reference over from that article to each item on the list in the list article.   D r e a m Focus  22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of sure they do actually... nobody is going to waste time clicking all the links to make sure info is true or not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they usually don't. Look at similar themed list at List of cryptids, List of legendary creatures from Japan, and List of Greek mythological creatures.  Or thousands of other articles that begin with "list of".   D r e a m Focus  23:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhh, you're pointing to a list of other blue linked articles. This list is not, it is a list of examples, none of which have their own articles. I see what you mean, but this isn't an example of what you're talking about. There is also no category of "swamp monsters", though there is already a List of piscine and amphibian humanoids which I'd assume overlaps strongly with "swamp monsters".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Different list, different things on it. I don't see anything from the mythology, folklore, or fiction sections lining up with this list article.  Anything on this list that doesn't have its own article, or an article that mentions a swamp monster, needs a reference.  I'll see what I can find.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, List of legendary creatures from Japan (which I considered tagging as unsourced based on the above) is actually just a list of links to Wikipedia articles with almost no factual claims -- what would citations do? Verify that they are legendary creatures and are from Japan? (Yes, the few factual claims it makes are mostly questionable -- I worked as a CIR in the Iwate Prefectural Government and I never heard of "Anmo", so it's definitely not WP:BLUE but even in the linked article is unsourced. And the page is still an OR mess, as many of the entries are just the Japanese readings of the names of characters from China, like Sun Wukong, or are the names of divinities, like Raijin, or link, without nuance, to articles on Japanese words for common real-world animals, like kitsune.) Anyway, the solution proposed by Dream Focus wouldn't work for much of this article anyway: the One Piece character, for instance, appears to have been a minor monster of the week, and the linked article names neither Caribou nor Swamp Swamp Fruit. Would you suggest culling that entry from the list as non-noteworthy, or would locating a citation for it be better? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kinda already answered my question. That said, I still find it very questionable to include in a list a random grab-bag of creature from myth, folklore and fiction who are in some way associate with swamps, and factual claims drawing those obscure links (see the hydra example) still definitely need sources, as they are not WP:BLUE. Simply linking the article with no factual claim would be better, but still would not justify inclusion in a list of monsters associated with swamps. And we definitely still can't call the mythological and folkloric examples "fictional": that term has a specific meaning that is much narrower than the sloppy "probably does not exist". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I already tagged some as needing more information. Not sure what was a one time only thing of little significance or not.  Someone familiar with the series can discuss it.  I also deleted one that wasn't a swamp monster but a guy dressed up as one on a cartoon.  I am going through the list now.  A television episode of Family Guy, Business Guy, mentions the "swamp monster" in it, so that entry should stay.  The Simpson's episode however doesn't seem to mention a swamp monster at all.  Unless a reliable source mentions it in a review of that episode, it get deleted.    D r e a m Focus  00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "mentions a swamp monster"? I'm not sure if you watch Family Guy, but I'm an occasional viewer (more pre-2012 when I could watch it on regular TV) and I'm prety sure like half the content of any given episode is cut-away gags that aren't even really "in continuity" with the rest of the show. I haven't actually seen the episode in question, but our plot summary implies it is an almost-throwaway gag in the final act of the story. Wikipedia isn't TV Tropes. To paraphrase my original !vote, no one is arguing that "swamp monster" isn't a real term that is used outside Wikipedia, so granting more "must include" status to a Family Guy gag because it actually uses the exact phrase seems off-the-mark to me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If its just a gag and not the main feature I suppose no point in it. Also I just looked it up to see if any reliable sources reviewed that episode and mentioned a swamp monster and only found one result. www.ign.com/articles/2009/12/14/family-guy-business-guy-review Seems to be a gag and not a real swamp monster, a guy dressed up as one instead.  Anyway, discussing what should remain or be removed should be done on the article's talk page, not here.  There are plenty of valid entries to fill the list.   D r e a m Focus  02:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then we're back to the question of whether there is anything in the article worth saving, and whether the encyclopedia would be served by keeping what's there visible to non-admins in the long run. If this closes as "keep" (as opposed to "Move to draft"), will you keep working to improve it? That is ARS's purpose, and presumably why it was posted there. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is plenty worth saving. It meets all requirements for a Wikipedia article, so it will most likely be kept.  And whether anyone works on it or not doesn't change that.  AFD is not cleanup.  That is a clear rule.  Anything that can be fixed by normal editing practices should do so, with deletion as a last result.  This article has been here since 2006, it not some new article that needs to be moved into a draft, that just ridiculous.  If you deleted every article that wasn't perfect, most of Wikipedia would be gone.  That's now how we do things here.  See:  Wikipedia:NOTPERFECT Even the articles that people consider perfect took a long time and many edits from many editors to get where they are at.  If you want to help Wikipedia, edit articles and discuss how to improve them on their talk page, don't try to delete them.   D r e a m Focus  03:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is plenty worth saving. Care to venture an example? The entire "folklore" section needs to go, as it's just your OR. whether anyone works on it or not doesn't change that Then why was it posted at ARS, which is meant to encourage people to work on fundamentally broken articles on topics that may be notable, to prevent them from being TNT-deleted? When ARS members just show up to !vote in the AFD and either (a) do nothing with the article or (b) make it worse, then ARS is doing the opposite of its stated purpose. That is a clear rule. AFD is not cleanup. If virtually everything in an article needs to be deleted per WP policy (in this case NOR), there is no significant difference between essentially blanking the page and starting over (as I did on Ariwara no Narihira, Li He and Kakinomoto no Hitomaro) and actually deleting the page per WP:TNT. The former is good when an enthusiastic and interested editor or group of editors is already present, but the latter is preferable to just leaving a pure OR article in the mainspace indefinitely. Moving the page out of the mainspace is another option that can be pursued when an editor or WikiProject has expressed interest in improving it but don't seem likely to do so in a timely manner. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Destroying an article that developed over years doesn't make a new better one magically appear in its place. Most people have stated this article should be kept, and gave legitimate reasons for it to be.  Do you think its original research for the articles linked to say something is a swamp monster in them?  Would copying over a reference from those linked to articles to where they are on the list make any real difference?  Most lists don't bother doing that, since there is no possible reason to bother with it.  And will you stop your relentless idiotic attack on the ARS already?  Focus on the article.  Many have stated it passes WP:NOTABILITY, so it should be kept.   D r e a m Focus  07:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most people have stated this article should be kept, and gave legitimate reasons for it to be. Oh, brother... No. Most people have said the same thing as me: the topic is notable and could be the basis of a decent article, but literally or almost everything in the article now is garbage and in the long term will need to go. I've seen this game be played before: if this AFD is closed as "consensus to keep", please refrain from reading (or pretending to read) that as a blessing on the article that is already there, or the content you added to it during the course of this discussion, or the nonsense title change you proposed. The OR you added to the "folklore" section needs to go, and it is completely inappropriate to refer to classify mythology and folklore as "fiction" anywhere on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are now two cited items in the "folklore" section - the Honey Island Swamp monster, and the skunk ape. Even if the rest of the folklore examples are removed, that is still enough to say that this is a concept found in folklore. bd2412  T 12:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. My concern is that a "keep" close will be used to justify preserving the OR, especially in that section, and to justify describe mythology and folklore as "fiction". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you actually want to delete an article because someone used the word "fiction" in the opening sentence of the article along with the word "folklore"? Do you want mythology to be in its own section?  That isn't a reason to delete an article.  You can edit the article like anyone else can, and use the talk page to discuss what should be in it.   D r e a m Focus  21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would suggest, as a start, putting citation needed tags on those points that need a citation. bd2412  T 21:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, tagging content that was added recently following a discussion, and the editor who added it admitted that he did not have a source and was engaging in OR based on the Wikipedia articles describing things as "monsters" and being in some way associated with "swamps", would be pointless; we already know it is unsourced OR, so blanking would be better than tagging. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That would diminish the possibility of a later editor who happens to have a source handy from coming by and adding it. I would be fine with moving questionable unsourced items to the talk page for discussion. bd2412  T 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, you and your amazing friends may think it is acceptable to make strawman arguments like "You want to delete an article" and just let them hang there, but it is not. I never said I want to delete this article: I said everything in it is an NOR-violation and needs to go, even if the topic is notable, so moving to the draft space where you and the other ARS members can do what your project says is its primary purpose and improve the article to meet our policy standards. And you or someone else (I haven't checked) has already added "sources" to the mythological entries that almost certainly don't use the phrase "swamp monster", after I was saying on this page they needed to go; this very strongly implies that if I try to remove them as OR (whether now or, even more likely, in the hypothetical future where this is closed as "consensus to keep") I will be autoreverted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit. The cited source for the hydra actually does say "nine-headed swamp monster". Now we are faced with the question of whether it is okay to lump various creatures that RSes have somewhat broadly described as "swamp monsters" together in an article that was clearly always meant to be about a Creature from the Black Lagoon-type "swamp man" (a term we give as a synonym in the lead). I would say no, but ... ? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a source calling the gil man from the Creature from the Black Lagoon a "swamp monster" also.  D r e a m Focus  04:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course you did. The reason I said that above is that I would expect the majority of sources discussing swamp monsters to deal with the Creature, since he is the archetypal swamp monster. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How is there any more "lumping" here than with the general concept of a monster? That article says that monsters "are usually composites of different creatures, or hybrids of humans and animals" and names as well-known fictional examples, "Count Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, werewolves, mummies, and zombies". All of those examples are humanoid, but there is no question of whether it is permissible to include all of them under that topic. We could say almost exactly the same thing about swamp monsters. They are monsters, which are creatures that are often humanoid, or composites of different creatures. bd2412  T 13:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "monster" already has a broad meaning by its very nature, but "swamp monster" as a concept refers to a specific type of semi-aquatic humanoid of the Creature of the Black Lagoon type, and that's what the article should be focusing on. Throwing in a grab-bag of unrelated creatures in some way associated with swamps (like the hydra) is not helpful, even if once in a blue moon an RS actually uses the exact words "swamp monster" to describe them. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then have a subsection for non-humanoid swamp monsters. The term by its parts means a monster that resides in a swamp, having characteristics suited for living in that environment. bd2412  T 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Creatures that are often humanoid, or composites of different creatures [...] having characteristics suited for living in that environment – citation please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Swamp monster" as a concept refers to a specific type of semi-aquatic humanoid of the Creature of the Black Lagoon type – I'm not seeing clear support for this idea in reliable sources either – in fact, I think that's the essence of the AfD nomination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have actually found a 2015 book directly on point - Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers (yes, the title is "Muck", not "Swamp", but the book describes is subject matter as "swamp monsters" numerous times throughout). This could basically inform the entire article. Do not make into a list; there is a basic concept to be expanded on. No objection to draftifying for a period of improvement. bd2412  T 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I think if that is the kind of source being used, the article will need to be reoriented back to modern popular culture. Cooke doesn't seem to have any credentials in mythology or folkloristics so his views on those fields (if he expresses them at all in that book) should probably not be cited on Wikipedia if they do not agree with the views of professional scholars (and even if they do agree, we should just cite the scholars). Removing "folklore" and "mythology" from the article would also solve the problem of renaming the article to use the word "fictional". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned that book in my contribution above timestamped 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC). While it is devoted to swamp monsters in popular culture, I think that swamp monsters in folklore is also a legitimate topic, one that popular culture draws upon. --Lambiam 16:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * one that popular culture draws upon Citation needed? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - A magazine from TwoMorrows Publishing (Comic Book Creator #6) devoted an entire issue to the concept, and I found other notable works that can also support an article. While I'm sympathetic to Hijiri88's concern about the article not being improved in a timely manner, I think there's enough decent material in the current article to preserve it until an interested editor comes along. I would not oppose someone going in and removing all the challenged/unsourced material, which is far easier than adding sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your logic, but what do you think about the "undecent" material in the current article? Arguably the worst of it (the OR related to mythology and folklore) was added in the past two days by one of the other "keep" !votes, so the chances of removing that content if this AFD is closed as consensus to keep, having supposedly been improved sufficiently since being nominated, seem slim. If there is consensus to keep the article in place, then there should also be either (a) a clear consensus to cut the OR or (b) a clear statement by the closer and as many of the "keep" !votes as possible that while the page can be kept much of the current content is forbidden by policy. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a consensus to remove OR regardless of the outcome here. If you remove it, then the onus is on the editor who wants to restore it to provide a source. If you'd like, I can add improving this article to my to-do list, but it may take me a couple months to get to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you remove it, then the onus is on the editor who wants to restore it to provide a source. You would think that, but no: I tried to tweak the wording of WP:BURDEN a coupla years back to add "the cited source doesn't verify the content" as a valid reason for continued removal of content that was previously challenged as unsourced and then a "source" was found, but I was shouted down. Since I wrote my first reply to you above, the questionable material has had citations added to it, and I find it very unlikely that those sources actually use the term "swamp monster", but now that the content "is sourced" it is very difficult to remove it unless you can either get a clear majority of editors to agree and a dissenting minority who thankfully recognize consensus. Even though WP:V and WP:NOR are on one's side. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. I haven't encountered that level of pushback, but I usually work clean-up on articles that have been tagged for years, not days. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to enlighten the rest of us as to the identity of these "notable works"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider yourself enlightened. All these were found using a Google book search. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly good, but note that the third one merely copies Wikipedia. bd2412  T 14:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. I thought that one seemed a little too on the nose... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unknown Creatures, like Modern Folklore, is from self-publishing company Lulu.com and therefore not reliable. The others merely describe specific, local legends or fictional creatures that happen to use the phrase swamp monster or swamp creature in the sense of its dictionary definition (a creature from a swamp). Real Monsters, Gruesome Critters, and Beasts from the Darkside is a compilation of unrelated "swamp creature" legends including the Honey Island Swamp monster, the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp, the skunk ape, etc; Classical Myths and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance deals with the Lernaean Hydra; TIME-LIFE Mysteries of the Unknown covers the bunyip; Haunted Ohio mentions a legendary creature from a local swamp called simply "The Swamp Monster"; and The Haunting of Louisiana individually describes the loup garou, feu follet, couquin l'eau, and will-o'-the-wisp, which are all believed to inhabit swamps but are not otherwise related. Icons of the American Comic Book is barely an exception; it discusses DC Comics' Swamp Thing in relation to the mythical Green Man, mentioning a "swamp monster archetype" without explanation. I don't see significant coverage of the concept of swamp monster itself in any of these sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's how you see it, then that's how you see it. I feel I could build a solid article from these, so I'm staying "keep". Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then by all means add your contributions. Improvements to articles at AfD are encouraged. However, I doubt that there is anything here that wouldn't be better placed in the individual topic articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (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.