457:
dedicated to listing this and another non-notable sighting was just an attempt to circumvent this to get the person's favorite sighting included in the article. However, one of the sources in the "Bear" section is an news article about this sighting. The text does not say anything specific about this particular sighting--the reference is to show that some sightings are due to bears. I therefore think that there could be room to add a sentence that specifically mentions this as an example. This was only briefly talked about on the page so I don't believe consensus has been reached on this yet. —
356:(this deserves a one- or two-line mention in that article, at most). On no account should this be deleted outright, since it is a plausible search term, and contains well-sourced material that should not be cut from Knowledge (XXG).—If someone comes to Knowledge (XXG) to read about the Jacobs Creature, as is not totally implausible, I'd want them to find the scientific consensus, not a redlink.—
650:. I checked the history and looked at the article when it was at its longest. Some of that should not have been removed. It has coverage is at least one newspaper, and MSNBC had an article about it from the associated press. I added a link to the MSNBC article back to the page. I also found it mentioned in the Field and Stream(major nature magazine)
51:. The consensus of arguments (not the countin of bolded votes) indicates merge/redirection. Consensus here should not automatically override consensus established at a more suitable locations such as the article talkpage, so this will be a close to redirect, with merging of material left as a separate decision to be made elsewhere.
493:
With respect, there's every reason for a merge. Notability tells us what's suitable to have its own article, but it's certainly not a reason to remove reliably sourced material from
Knowledge (XXG). (There are a few situations in which we might do that, but notability in itself certainly isn't one
396:
is being waved around though , since that’s a policy regarding content of an article rather than whether or not an article should exist. Unless of course it’s being used in it’s capacity of being shorthand for “I don’t like fringe topics! Get rid of them! Rarrgh!” , which sadly seems to be the case
135:
and our ArbCom created policies on fringe science topics, as the only reputable sources who have weighed in say unequivocally that it was a bear and not a
Bigfoot. People on Bigfoot article don't find it notable for mention there, so having a full article would make even less sense. Even the name is
520:
Not every single piece of "reliably sourced material" has a place on
Knowledge (XXG), actually. Regardless, the only item that is well sourced is the fact that this has been explained as a bear sighting. Now, that information could certainly be expanded upon in the Bigfoot article, but you have to
151:
I would like to ask for some clarification before weighing in here.There were references from newspapers here that have now been removed for some reason, there have been a lot of edits so I'm not sure I get when and why they were removed from the article. I'm dismayed to discover that other editors
417:
that would determine whether something deserves even a short mention in a larger article obviously apply to whether it should have an article all to itself as well. If it's not worth mentioning on the main page, as was decided there, then making it a whole article unto itself is basically spinning
172:
It seems that many of those references were removed when the Origin section was removed because it basically repeated the lead. Those references were never moved into the lead, which if this is kept should be done. I think some of the references were removed because the articles didn't support the
456:
Consensus appears to be reached on the page that this does not qualify for being listed under the "Prominent reported sightings" section because it is not one of the top few most prominent sightings. There also appears to be a consensus that adding a section about juvenile
Bigfoot that was solely
187:
While this topic gained attention at the time it happened there has been little done with it since. Some
Bigfoot organizations use it as an example but it has not risen to a level of prominence that has gotten skeptics to mention it (excluding the time shortly following the publication of these
625:
The mere fact that something happened and can be sourced does not mean it is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the main topic. Yes, this happened. And thousands of other people saw things they think were
Bigfoot too. We can't list them all. In the history of claimed
397:
a lot of the time these days. I've added a rescue tag in case anyone feels like expanding the article out to the point where it justifies a seperate existance - it seems like having a trawl through the history and reconsidering some of the removed material might be a place to start there.
544:
Hopeless nonsense, the sort of thing that gives the more serious bigfoot investigators a bad name. Nothing here is reliably sourced beyond the existence of the imaghination of the people who developed the film. Dubious sourcing, as would be
569:
a
British national newspaper.—I do realise that it doesn't refer to the Jacobs Creature by that name, and that it implies the creature was a bear with severe mange, but nevertheless I think that source belongs somewhere in Bigfoot-related
230:. The consensus is that this sighting is not prominent enough to warrant inclusion in the list of prominent sightings. However, it is already alluded to in the references elsewhere in the article so a quick blurb might be added. —
432:
Actually
Fiziker's remark (above) is at odds with yours. Fiziker said the consensus was that it couldn't appear in the list of notable sightings, but might be worth a mention elsewhere in the article. Would you agree with
173:
statements made. There certainly are news reports from the month following the announcement of the pictures. However, there don't appear to be much else in the way of sources for this material. —
131:
No notability established, orphaned article, article created by SPA account that got banned for use of sockpuppets to push agenda, and existence of article would seem to violated
124:
602:
So it is. That resolves that, then, but raises the question of why this sighting isn't mentioned in the
Bigfoot article when there's a source. Still, not a matter for AfD.—
521:
understand that given the context of hundreds of
Bigfoot sightings, the Bigfoot article can not give each one attention, and instead focuses on the most notable. Regards,
684:
The Field & Stream link given there says only that it was mentioned on a blog affiliated with the magazine and not the magazine itself. There's a huge difference.
267:- Meets General notability guideline criteria as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
593:
The Daily Mail source is a part of the Bigfoot article and was prior to the creation of the Jacobs Creature article. Currently it is reference 30. —
284:
by which I mean I agree it should be merged to a short blurb in the Bigfoot article, but that may conflict with consensus over there. I dunno.
475:
clearly non-notable, and if it has already been discussed and rejected for inclusion on the Bigfoot page, there is no reason for a merge.
91:
86:
95:
17:
613:
581:
507:
444:
367:
188:
pictures). I'm therefore inclined to say that this is not notable enough. However, I think this is a somewhat border line case. —
78:
136:
odd, as only one source calls it that, and that's some Bigfoot true believer site, with no evidence anyone else used the term.
758:
36:
651:
757:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
743:
739:
726:
707:
693:
677:
620:
597:
588:
556:
530:
514:
484:
461:
451:
427:
406:
374:
342:
330:
323:
293:
276:
259:
234:
217:
192:
177:
165:
145:
60:
496:
It follows that if the article's deleted, we have to decide where any reliably-sourced material should go.—
250:
article, which contains, or likely will soon contain, some amount of information about this episode.
610:
578:
504:
441:
364:
289:
161:
82:
56:
735:
689:
631:
526:
423:
255:
141:
414:
393:
132:
480:
338:
213:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
655:
314:
272:
205:
603:
571:
497:
434:
357:
285:
157:
74:
66:
722:
703:
698:
The competition would appear to make it quite notable, any idea wjhy that was removed?
402:
52:
685:
627:
552:
522:
419:
251:
137:
654:. I believe that counts as notable coverage. Shouldn't this be Jacobs' Creature?
594:
476:
458:
334:
231:
227:
209:
189:
174:
112:
309:
268:
718:
699:
398:
303:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
547:
387:
353:
247:
201:
152:
working on this page were all one person. (and mildly embarrassed that
47:
734:
and redirect to bigfoot (there's nothing of any value to be "merged.")
565:
Do you not agree that the Daily Mail source should be kept, DGG? It
751:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
717:
appears to be enough material to justify it's own article.
626:
sightings, this one just isn't notable for special notice.
119:
108:
104:
100:
382:
Seems like the article as is is a good candidate for
308:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
761:). No further edits should be made to this page.
206:one news incident does not rate its own article
8:
329:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
226:We've discussed this recently on
246:- or create a redirect to the
1:
778:
744:15:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
727:16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
708:16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
694:13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
678:02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
621:01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
598:17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
589:09:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
557:07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
531:16:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
515:21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
485:21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
462:02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
452:20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
428:19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
407:19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
375:16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
343:14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
324:18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
294:19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
277:12:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
260:23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
235:15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
218:15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
193:16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
178:16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
166:15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
146:13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
61:10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
754:Please do not modify it.
418:off a POV-fork article.
32:Please do not modify it.
156:didn't figure it out).
333:). It is listed now.
413:The principles of
44:The result was
392:I’m not sure why
326:
769:
756:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
618:
608:
586:
576:
512:
502:
449:
439:
372:
362:
352:and redirect to
321:
312:
307:
305:
122:
116:
98:
34:
777:
776:
772:
771:
770:
768:
767:
766:
765:
759:deletion review
752:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
617:
614:
604:
585:
582:
572:
511:
508:
498:
448:
445:
435:
371:
368:
358:
315:
310:
301:
118:
89:
75:Jacobs Creature
73:
70:
67:Jacobs Creature
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
775:
773:
764:
763:
747:
746:
729:
711:
710:
696:
681:
680:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
615:
583:
560:
559:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
509:
488:
487:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
446:
410:
409:
378:
377:
369:
347:
346:
345:
306:
298:
297:
296:
279:
262:
240:
239:
238:
237:
221:
220:
195:
181:
180:
169:
168:
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
774:
762:
760:
755:
749:
748:
745:
741:
737:
736:Bali ultimate
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
679:
676:
675:
653:
652:photo contest
649:
646:
645:
633:
629:
624:
623:
622:
619:
611:
609:
607:
601:
600:
599:
596:
592:
591:
590:
587:
579:
577:
575:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
550:
549:
543:
540:
539:
532:
528:
524:
519:
518:
517:
516:
513:
505:
503:
501:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
470:
463:
460:
455:
454:
453:
450:
442:
440:
438:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
389:
385:
380:
379:
376:
373:
365:
363:
361:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
325:
322:
320:
319:
313:
304:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
236:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
194:
191:
186:
183:
182:
179:
176:
171:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
139:
134:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
58:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
753:
750:
731:
714:
656:
647:
605:
573:
570:discussion.—
566:
546:
541:
499:
495:
472:
436:
383:
381:
359:
349:
317:
316:
302:
281:
264:
243:
228:Talk:Bigfoot
197:
184:
153:
130:
46:redirect to
45:
43:
31:
28:
282:Train wreck
606:S Marshall
574:S Marshall
500:S Marshall
437:S Marshall
360:S Marshall
286:Beeblebrox
158:Beeblebrox
545:expected.
494:of them.)
53:Fritzpoll
686:DreamGuy
628:DreamGuy
523:ClovisPt
420:DreamGuy
415:WP:UNDUE
394:WP:UNDUE
252:ClovisPt
138:DreamGuy
133:WP:UNDUE
125:View log
595:Fiziker
477:Locke9k
473:Delete:
459:Fiziker
388:bigfoot
384:merging
354:Bigfoot
335:DumbBOT
248:Bigfoot
232:Fiziker
210:Bearian
202:Bigfoot
190:Fiziker
175:Fiziker
92:protect
87:history
48:Bigfoot
732:delete
542:Delete
433:that?—
331:step 3
269:Untick
244:Delete
185:Delete
120:delete
96:delete
673:Focus
350:Merge
200:with
198:Merge
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
740:talk
723:talk
719:Artw
715:keep
704:talk
700:Artw
690:talk
648:Keep
632:talk
616:Cont
584:Cont
553:talk
527:talk
510:Cont
481:talk
447:Cont
424:talk
403:talk
399:Artw
370:Cont
339:talk
290:talk
273:talk
265:Keep
256:talk
214:talk
162:talk
142:talk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
57:talk
548:DGG
386:to
311:Ged
742:)
725:)
706:)
692:)
567:is
555:)
529:)
483:)
426:)
405:)
341:)
318:UK
292:)
275:)
258:)
216:)
208:.
204:;
164:)
144:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
59:)
738:(
721:(
702:(
688:(
670:m
667:a
664:e
661:r
658:D
634:)
630:(
612:/
580:/
551:(
525:(
506:/
479:(
443:/
422:(
401:(
390:.
366:/
337:(
288:(
271:(
254:(
212:(
160:(
154:I
140:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
55:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.