Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?

[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)

Self-published pseudoscience work (cryptozoology) with no evident notability. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie:, @Tronvillain:, both of whom frequently work in these corners. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article includes 7 references to reviews of the book, including one from Rue Morgue. Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Per Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that of those "7 references to reviews", all are reviews on blogs outside of Rue Morgue and Fortean Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm looking at the November 2015 issue of the Fortean Times and the goatman isn't mentioned. Ah, I see, it was the October 2015 issue. --tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to satisfy WP:NBOOK. It has coverage in the Fortean Times and Rue Morgue. They are magazines. One has a circulation in excess of 13,000. We might infer from that circulation that this book is well known. I cannot think of any reason why either of those magazines would not be reliable for the 'entertainment value' of this book. No substantive objection to either source has been offered. James500 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll echo the above. It's a stub, could use expansion. Although how much can one say about it? But short doesn't mean it fails to meet notability. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen I've read and edited many Wikipedia pages for books. The burden of proof to prove notability lies with the editor who decides to write the Wikipedia page. You always start with notable citations (reviews of the book from notable people/sources) This is a new book (2014) and all reviews would be easily found in a quick search. Because they were not used, I'm going to assume that they do not exist. There is a reception area, so obviously the editor tried to find notable citations, and failed. Of the seven mentions in the reception, only three are notable. And of that few words are used to review, they sound like blurbs on the back of the book, not real reviews. The Fortean Times review links to a print magazine, no page number, no author, only "November 2015 issue". The Rue Morgue link is a 404 link. The Lloren Coleman link is to a list of 20 books on cryptozoology and he does not review any of them, just says these are the best cryptozoology books of 2014. As far as we know they might be the only cryptozoology books in 2014, really there is no review of this specific book. So what I'm saying here is that if there was more content about this book to expand it past a stub, it would be on this page already. Also when writing a Wikipedia page for a book, you START with the notable reviews, NOT add them as if an afterthought. This editor did not do due diligence. Sgerbic (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, under WP:BEFORE the burden of proof lies squarely on the nominator and those arguing for deletion. WP:NRVE states that sources are not required to be online. You may not assume the coverage in what you know to be print magazines (that would be the two I mentioned) does not exist merely because it is not available online. Many things are not. If you have doubts, you must look at a print copy. James500 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, the article provides no evidence of the review being in the Rue Morgue print magazine. I've established the issue and page number of the -Fortean Times. --tronvillain (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - - If the burden of proof relies on the nominator then that means that we might as well open up the doors to articles on everyone's cat. And we can just busy ourselves nominating and discussing their deletion. The original editor has to do their due diligence to prove that the article is notable. They are the person making the claim. I'm well aware that we use print citations, I have used many over the years. But a book this recent would also have citations online by now. I am trying not to assume, but common-sense tells me that if the best this book has are two mentions in a print article that do not exist online, then this book is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a Createspace self-published book pushing WP:FRINGE claims (example: "Of course, just about everyone says it’s all just an urban legend. Except for those who’ve came face-to-muzzle with the Goatman himself, or the families of those who’ve died while trying to encounter the monster"). With zero WP:FRIND sources available to build an objective article with, it can only cite gushing reviews from other fringe-mongers. If, someday, it should gain notability outside the fringe bubble which are more than passing mentions, we can revisit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A self-published book that doesn't appear to meet WP:NFRINGE. It seems to have been mentioned in various fringe sources and on the Rue Morgue website, but it's nothing like the extensive coverage by sources independent of the fringe theory of cryptozoology we'd want for its own article. --tronvillain (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete self-published work which apparently got no notice outside the crypto/Fortean bubble. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete self-published work, in-bubble. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last three above. As is self-evident, the sources fail the crucial requirement for a reliable source: a solid reputation for fact-checking. It's not totally inconceivable that a book vanity-published by Amazon might become fully notable by our standards (with substantial reviews in the New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement and the like), but that is most definitely not the case here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Seemingly no notablility; still a book, could pass guidelines. However, delete per previous 4 comments and nom. Redditaddict6 9 09:33, 17 August 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.