Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thetis Lake monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Pigman☿ 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thetis Lake monster

Thetis Lake monster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This particular cryptid does not appear to be notable. It was reported in 1972 and not since then. There is no chance for this to become encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete A not notable, unencyclopedic entry, with what appears like original research. Mark t young (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to explain why you are saying it "not notable, unencyclopedic entry". A simple comment like this is doing nothing help to build an encyclopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep — 30-year old silly season article it may be, but it's got a number of publications behind it — it's not original research, but it's definitely not "famous" outside of monster-hunter circles. The Epoch Times gives it a whole paragraph here. Ross Cockford, a Victorian historian, mentions that it's cited in W. Haden Blackman's 1998 Field Guide to North American Monsters (not to mention in Cockford's own Unknown Victoria). I think this article captures how it is usually explained in cryptozoology circles (Notice the line "located in the wilds of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada", which will make anyone even remotely familiar with Thetis Lake role their eyes. The only thing "wild" there are the teenagers during July.) Loren Coleman's Mothman and Other Curious Encounters (availible via Google Books) gives it a full page — an unsurprisingly leaves off with a tantalizing "the RCMP are investigating", rather than the boring "it was an escaped lizard". You might be able to find more sources with the term "Gill man", since the 1972 monster bears a striking similarity to the 1954 Creature from the Black Lagoon. --Haemo (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It also has an independent entry in Coleman's Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Around the World, which I actually own. In truth, most cryptids are confined to short flaps; only a handful, like Bigfoot or Nessie, have any real staying power. It's unlikely that this thing really existed, but we can verify that people claimed to see it, which is good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable as post above. Poorly written article is no reason for Afd. Mark it {{unencyclopedic}} {{original research}} etc ChessCreator (talk)
  • Weak keep per Haemo. JJL (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haemo and per Zagalejo. The article could use some work, but I don't think there is a justifiable reason to delete. I have actually been linked to this article twice in the last year. DigitalC (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability and verifiability demonstrated by numerous sources in previous !votes. The subject of the article and the age of the references don't matter in the least. Celarnor Talk to me 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed - plenty of references to this event, and to be honest it shouldn't matter if the sources originate from Web 2.0 or some 40-year-old local newspaper. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Really? You think a two paragraph article in a 40-year-old local newspaper establishes enough notability for a subject? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I do; I don't support discrimination on news sources based on their readership or size. Celarnor Talk to me 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. You might want to see if this flies at WP:RSN, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it wouldn't; RS guidelines don't include an age cutoff for good reason. If we did that, then a lot of historical material would suffer. As to scope of the publication, 'mainstream' news sources are encouraged but only necessary in highly controversial areas (i.e, politics). If they were required everywhere, Wikipedia would become a much smaller and less useful project. Celarnor Talk to me 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Age really isn't the issue, except that we tend to be a bit more biased toward present-day (but that's another story). The issue is that parochial stories may not have received enough notice in reliable sources for us to be able to write a decent encyclopedia article on the subject. Lacking sources, we are stuck either with an incomplete article or we have to make stuff up (see WP:OR). This is why notability guidelines exist in the first place. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
But other sources have been provided. Obviously, if this were the only source, the article wouldn't work at all, but the subject has received attention elsewhere; see comments higher up. Celarnor Talk to me 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any underdeveloped article needs sourcing, clean up and expansion, not deletion. There are several sources available on the topic.

The article also has some sources. Mothman and Other Curious Encounters is a very good source and covers the subject in quite detail. And I agree with User:Zagalejo that "most cryptids are confined to short flaps; only a handful, like Bigfoot or Nessie, have any real staying power. It's unlikely that this thing really existed, but we can verify that people claimed to see it, which is good enough". Less known cryptids like this has far less source or references which are available for well-known cryptids like Bigfoot, but there are enough sources to established notability. This kind of nomination is the best way to destroy the encyclopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The sources are off-topic. The article is about the 'Thetis Lake monster'. Attempting to spin gold from nothing is not encyclopedic. One silly season article and that is it! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day even if that day is thirty plus years ago. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the sources are not "off-topic", in writing the article 9/11 attack, do you use only the books titled "9/11 attack", do you? No. You are free to use any scholarly book on terrorism covering the subjects or any book titled "Inside Al Qaeda, Global Network of Terror" or something like this which describe all types of Al Qaeda operation, not only 9/11 attack. The book Mothman and Other Curious Encounters is not only for this cryptid, but that is not the reason for calling the source "off-topic", because the book describes this topic in quite detail. The comment that "sources are off-topic" is simply a fallacy. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you elaborate a bit on why the sources are off topic? They all mention the subject specifically. Celarnor Talk to me 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK,
  • The Victoria Daily Times. 22 August 1972 ...mentions monster (link broken).
  • Thetis Lake Conservation Area ...link broken
  • The Gill Man of Thetis Lake ...blog ...references the August 22, 1972 article above.
  • The Province Newspaper. 26 August 1972. link broken ...repeat of 22 Aug 1972 story.
  • Carnivorous lizard in toilet, Aftenposten newspaper, Norway ... nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection.
  • Presch, W. (1973), A review of the tejus lizard genus Tupinambis (Sauria: Teiidae) from South America.; Copeia 1973 (4), pp. 740-746 ... nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection
  • Irschick, D.J.; Jayne, B.C.(1999), Comparative three-dimensional kinematics of the hindlimb for high-speed bipedal and quadrupedal locomotion of lizards, Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, pp. 1047-1065...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection...no text ref
  • Irschick, D.J.; Jayne, B.C. (1999), A field study of effects of incline on the escape locomotion of a bipedal lizard, Callisaurus draconoides, Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 72, pp. 44-56...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection... no text ref
  • The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe, Illust. Harry Trumbore, ISBN 0-380-80263-5...nothing to do with Thetis Lake monster...pure speculative connection...no text ref
So, no reference but one. Everything either is derivative or off -topic. This is WP:OR with one poor silly season newspaper article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is for the sources you pointed out, the sources I mentioned above covers the subject in quite detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the references brought up during the AfD process, not the ones in the article. Also, you're mistaken about the final reference, as it includes mention of the monster. I'm assuming, like many people who participate in the 5-day AfD process, you did not pick it up. Celarnor Talk to me 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the last reference ...The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide is also derivative of the one and only original silly season newspaper article. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide is available in the Vancouver Public Library. Note that it is an Avon trade paperback and hardly a reliable source ... might as well reference the News of the World Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it can be considered a reliable source for what cryptozoologists believe the Thetis Lake Monster is. Yes, most of these works are derivative of the silly season article — but that's how a lot of these "monster stories" get started. We're not arguing here about the validity of the Thetis Lake Monster — it's an asinine story with zero credibility primarily flogged by opportunist monster-peddlers. However, the question is whether or not it's a notable asinine story with zero credibility primarily flogged by opportunistic monster-peddlers — and I think the answer there is "yes". --Haemo (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I lived for three years close to Thetis Lake,and visited the park many times, and I never heard of the story until this article in Wikipedia. Since then I've gone to the library to check 'cause it is interesting but it is non-notable. Lots of things are interesting but are not encyclopedic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've never been to Thetis Lake, or British Columbia in general, but I have heard of the Thetis Lake monster. I doubt you're going to budge, but how about merging some of this information to Thetis Lake? That article has lots of room to spare. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've lived next to Thetis Lake for 22 years too, and visited the park many times as well — and I completely agree with your sentiment. However, I think the amount of sourcing clearly shows that this is a relatively notable urban legend — at least in some circles. Just not those circles where "the wilds of Victoria, BC" will cause snickers. --Haemo (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously enough sources. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Extremely borderline sources for the actual incident: two newspaper articles and a blog. But these are not independent newspapers but local editions of the same paper with different titles, as judging by their current home pages. The links provided are just for the newspapers, and their archives include the last 30 days only. There is no way of telling from the link how seriously the incident was taken, and I see nothing in the history here or the article talk to indicate this. Perhaps someone who does have access can inform us. The blog is essentially just a report of those articles. The conservation area link does not mention this, and wasn't working anyway till I just now fixed it. The other articles are not about this particular event, and although they support the discussion in the article, they don't speak to the notability of the actual subject of the article. People here having heard or not heard of something of it isn't considered good arguments at afd, either for keep or delete. DGG (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    True of the ones in the article — but take a look at the ones presented in this discussion. Also, you are mistaken with respect to the two newspapers — The Province is a Vancouver-based publication, while the Times Colonist is based from victoria. They have similar homepages because they are both distributed by CanWest Global Communications, but they are definitely not local editions of the same paper — they both do take stories from the Global Newsbank, but in a similar way to the Associated Press. --Haemo (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – I agree there is hardly any news coverage. However, the sightings have gained enough notability so the creature itself has been referenced in three books as shown here [2] and at least one scholarly work as shown here [3]. My personal opinion is that this fulfills the requirements of third – party sourcing and coverage to establish notability. ShoesssS Talk 09:18, 10 April 2008 (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.