Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawfordsville 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crawfordsville monster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although it is a well-documented occurrence, this bit of trivia does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Got a certain amount of newspaper coverage back in the day, some of which is in the article, some more is here: [1][2] Not bad exposure for 1891 - I think it just clears the notability hurdle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper reports from the time should technically satisfy GNG, per WP:NTEMP; the GNG standard is essentially equivalent to "well-documented". But in addition, the phenomenon has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena, which is legit enough to have been cited a half-dozen times in scholarly publications, and was the subject of a History Channel episode, besides the thorough treatment on the Indiana Digital State Newspaper Program blog. FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I agree with Elmidae's point about coverage back in the day & what FourViolas said. = paul2520 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources provided by editors above, subject meets notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Squeaks by GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.