Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East River Monster

:{{la|East River Monster}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_River_Monster Stats])

:({{Find sources|East River Monster}})

No enduring coverage at all, we're not simply a news site. This isn't really a case of a real example of cryptozoology, it's a dog that got a short puff of coverage and then was totally forgotten. There's a reason we try to wait and not jump on every possible topic to create an article on. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::Unsurprisingly the article rescue squadron have arrived and voted without significantly improving the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::::True. But I would say that it is just blatant sarcasm and not a violent personal attack. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:But you cannot deny that it does have coverage, from reputable, reliable and third-party sources like Telegraph, Animal, etc. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. This topic has received international coverage in reliable sources. Examples: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9429010/Monster-washes-up-on-New-York-beach.html], [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/new-east-river-monster-is-not-a-pig.html]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::All the sources are from a small (less than week) period of time. Do we have anything to suggestion this isn't just isn't slow news day coverage? What sources do we have from this month? I also doubt the reliability of these sources, with such statements as "just what is the Parks Department hiding? Is Wilbur a mutant?", where are the sources required for WP:FRINGE to reflect scientific viewpoints, if it is notable? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::* The Telegraph and New York Magazine are definitely reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Ok, let's follow what the telegraph says about the New York magazine: "The New York's magazine's Daily Intel blog has cranked up the conspiracy with a blog post entitled: "We're Supposed to Believe the New East River Monster Is Just a Pig?"". Do you think the New yorks magazine which "cranked up the conspiracy" sounds reliable in this case? On a separate note, the news reports, as few as they were, died off after July 31st. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::The examples presented in my !vote above are just that, examples. Other sources are readily available... Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Do they do anything to establish notability of this... let's say event? Or are they all along the lines of the sources already cited in the article and here? -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::I couldn't find any from this month instead of last month, can you show what you have found. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, take your pick. I'm really sorry, but are you kidding me? Sources talking about government conspiracies and coverups, rat armies, secret labs? People who cannot tell the difference between a pig, a dog, a rat, a raccoon and what have you? And "reporters" jumping on the blogosphere bandwagon, with the Telegraph reporting that they're doing it? And that's supposed to be reliable sourcing? No. -- BenTels (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:* Side note: The East River Monster looks like a dead, partially roasted pig from my judgment of the sources thus far. What exactly is it? Bwah hah hah! Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::Nah. It's just like Roswell. Officials trying to cover things up. It's an Alien Pig-like Martian!!!!! But seriously?! If it was a pig, it probably win the "World's Ugliest Pig" and "World's Freakiest Pig" contests. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Sources abound, but they're all from July and, as notability is not temporary and the East River Pig or whatever it is has not generated any more "widespread coverage", I'd say it's not notable. dci | TALK 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:WP:NTEMP is PRECISELY why we should keep this page. This is as there IS enough generated coverage on the monster pig or whatever freak thing it is (or was). Muahaa. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::Find me coverage from this month. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep People will talk about it like they do other such monsters, it sure to be included in nature shows about such things and books like the other such things are. And it does get ample coverage, just not always by this name. [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=brooklyn+Bridge+monster&oq=brooklyn+Bridge+monster&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i8l2.3902.7479.1.7735.8.7.0.0.0.0.299.1288.0j4j3.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.yWA1EXatRco&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=65817657481ee744&biw=939&bih=575] Dream Focus 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge 'Monster' May Be Distant Relative Of Long Island ...

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../brooklyn-bridge-monster-montauk-mon...

Jul 26, 2012 – When news spread around New York City this week about the discovery of a grisly-looking, bloated, unidentified animal under the Brooklyn ...

Dead East River 'monster' confounds New Yorkers, animal experts ...

articles.nydailynews.com/2012.../32853147_1_pig-east-river-corpse

Jul 25, 2012 – A bloated, pig-like carcass spotted beneath the Brooklyn Bridge over the ... has spooked New Yorkers buzzing about mutant river “monsters.

East River Monster Pictures - Business Insider

www.businessinsider.com/east-river-monster-picture-2012-7?op=1

What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn Bridge? Dina Spector | Jul. 25, 2012, 3:13 PM | 395,104 | 80 ...

'Beast of Brooklyn' washed up in New York | Fox News - private

www.foxnews.com/scitech/.../beast-brooklyn-washed-up-in-new-yor...

Jul 26, 2012 – Mystery surrounds the discovery of a hideous creature washed up under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Dubbed the "Manhattan monster," its ...

What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn - private

www.pakalertpress.com/.../what-the-heck-is-this-terrifying-creature-f...

Jul 26, 2012 – A photo posted by Gothamist's Jen Carlson on Monday of a scary-looking carcass found along the East River had everyone rehashing ...

East River 'Monster' - The Blaze - private

www.theblaze.com/.../east-river-monster-grotesque-carcass-washes-u...

Jul 25, 2012 – We found the dead creature lying on the strip of sand beside the East River, on the Manhattan side, directly beneath the Brooklyn Bridge.

Giant Rat Monster Found Under Brooklyn Bridge! | TeddyHilton.com - private

teddyhilton.com › Disgusting!

Jul 26, 2012 – Yep...it was good knowing you folks...the world is over and overlords will soon be giant rat mutant monsters that live under the Brooklyn Bridge.

Bloated 'Rat Monster' Found Under New York City Bridge - PawNation - private

www.pawnation.com/.../bloated-rat-monster-found-under-new-york-...

Jul 24, 2012 – According to Gothamist, a woman discovered this deceased creature laid out under the Brooklyn Bridge on the Manhattan side of New York ...

East River Monster Washes Up Below Brooklyn Bridge - YouTube - private

That's just the first page of Google results. Some of those are major news sources I recognize, the rest I'm not sure. Doesn't matter though, there are plenty of notable places covering it. Not sure if it got broadcast on national news or not, but it did some coverage on television as well. Ample coverage. Dream Focus 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::All these sources are from a 2-3 day period. Fully consistent with it being passing news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::WP:GNG has been met. Reliable sources address the subject directly in detail. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::::You are ignoring that it's just slow news day coverage which dropped off almost immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::And you are ignoring GNG. All requirements have been met to prove the subject notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is something interesting, so it was put in the news. It doesn't matter if the news coverage were all just within the first week or not. Dream Focus 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not News reports'." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. and the other things listed there, clearly are about something else. This wasn't anything like that. This was the discovery of a new unknown species which still has not be identified, which makes it notable. We're not mentioning what famous person was seen where, that a traffic accident happened, or a bird pooped on someone's windshield. Totally different situation. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:: This was the discovery of a new unknown species.{{cn|date=August 2012}} WP:EXCEPTIONAL. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::: Then lets not make it exceptional. Lets say that it was the discovery of a new mysterious carcass. Prob solved. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It's an interesting topic and it seemed likely that there would be more articles of this sort and so it proved. Our article globster links to several other articles about mysterious carcasses and so, per our editing policy, it makes sense to retain another well-documented case to help this topic area, *ahem*, ripen. Warden (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and, therefore, is not applicable to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tupaia cf javanica 050917 manc.jpg

File:Hand parts - en.svg on each hand and foot" is special - there are billions of humans having such characteristics!]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkers The Clown (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Tonight's stew thickener - a pig's trotter (as recommended by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall).jpg Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::See WP:INTERESTING. Also, your argument about what globster links to has little bearing on this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::* The globster article is quite relevant, being much the same general topic. We see from that existing work that we have articles such as Stronsay Beast — another mysterious carcass which is still being written about 200 years later. The contention that such topics are therefore just news with no lasting notability is thereby shown to be false and so not an adequate reason to delete. As for being interesting, that's just an aside. The policy which I specified here is WP:PRESERVE which indicates that we should not delete such well-sourced material if we can find a good home for it. And clearly, we can. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Every dead animal that washes up or is found somewhere isn't notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::It is when it gets news coverage for having five digits on each hand and foot, and other characteristics that make it not anything currently known to exist. Dream Focus 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I suggest counting the number of digits on your hand and feet. Five digits is the norm for mammals. {{cite journal|last=Galis|first=Frietson|coauthors=Jacques J.M. van Alphen, Johan A.J. Metz |no-tracking=true |year=2001|title=Why five fingers? Evolutionary constraints on digit numbers|journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution|volume=16|issue=11|pages=637–646|issn=01695347|doi=10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02289-3}}IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Side note: Hahahahahahhahh!!! Nice joke you have there, wolfie. You're a way better clown than me. When it comes to telling jokes.(But I bet you cant juggle atomic bombs as well as me!!!!) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Side note 2: Great sarcasm. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::But, one thing to note when saying that. Don't assume one has five digits on each hand and each feet. Some have more, some have less. Hm. Some are not even humans, so they do not have five digits. (On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog...) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::But that aside, I think what Dream Focus was trying to say was that its one of the first pigs (if it was one) to have five digits and such unusual feet, right? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} The newspapers seem to suggest it's probably a bloated dog carcass. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. All the coverage is in roughly a 5 day window, indicating that the topic has no lasting notability or persistence ("Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle"). The Event has had no effect ("An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. ")since it featured in newspapers at the end of July. The depth of coverage is insufficient, with most repeating the same claims; there is no source that goes particular in depth, rather they just repeat the same quotes from the interested parties, the telegraph for example, is just a rehash of the other websites. The diversity of coverage isn't great either, with most just repeating the material of each other. It fails every measure of events notability Wikipedia:Notability_(events).

:As summed up by WP:N(E): "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::* The main page section In the news today contains the usual mix of accidents, deaths, political news and crimes. The idea that Wikipedia doesn't cover these things is blatantly false. Warden (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

::::"(including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena)". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep meets WP:GNG. At a minimum can be merged to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases so deletion is unsupportable. CallawayRox (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep One more example for the List of cryptids. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Don't keep, i.e. merge and redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, which is a suitable target. Having reviewed the many articles available I can't see anything more than a sensationalistic news burst that died out very quickly. All articles were written around July 26-30 (the latest I saw was [http://walyou.com/brooklyn-bridge-monster/ this], from August 4, but it's just the original history, so it'd seem they were late to pick it up), and their content is mere speculation and, well, sensationalism. One month later and there isn't any follow-up to be found from those same sources. I couldn't find anything about the one found on Northville except for the initial reports, and that one was a year ago, so I'm not convinced that this is bound to generate in-depth coverage in the future. Lastly, Montauk Monster is not that large that it would be hindered by including this information, and it provides a context in which this particular event can be better understood, so I believe the reader would benefit for having this event presented within that context, rather than being forced to access another article, which in turn doesn't have any substantive content to expand on what was said at the parent article — Frankie (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to add that, in my opinion, the outcome of this debate lies on how one wants to perceive this case. On one hand, one might argue WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP, and WP:PRESERVE, plus the fact that there is ample sources and the subject being unusual in the sense to say that it is no usual animal. General notability seems to be met. But on the other end, naysayers might resort to arguing with the backup of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and is, therefore, not relevant to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

:Although, I am more opposed to a Keep as this case is not the norm and it is unusual and it would be unjust to delete it as it is a well sourced, thorough, descriptive and unique case. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of good sources can be found by simply googling new york city east river monster. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Also, one might consider a redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, but the relevancy between that and the alien pig is not there. (Unless if you talk about its place of discovery (a shore) , etc.) The East River monster stands out on its own. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Most of those hits are not about the topic of this article. I suggest checking "east river monster" instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::::I beg to differ. Searching this and THAT give you roughly the same thing: Lots and lots of reliable and trustworthy and accurate sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Those are the same sources as have already been mentioned and are from the ~5 day news window. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• A-ha! Look at Kitchenuhmaykoosib monster. Its referencing is worse... All from May 21/22 only. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. At a glance, I didn't see any mention of the carcass still existing for further verification. If this is the case, there is unlikely to be WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:EFFECT connected with this story. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG, but no opposition to a merge and redirect as suggested above. Cavarrone (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

: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.