Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid)

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid)[edit]

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

One mention in a blog is not sufficient to make this subject Notable. I searched Google News but found no hits at all. A broader Google search found only blog posts. This falls a long way short of GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substance to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources, for reference. It appears the monster was first described in this piece, which is not mentioned in the article. There is a reasonable passage in this book, and certainly some kind of mention in several other books as well. Obviously the article itself is quite poor generally, and would need to be completely rewritten. BubbleEngineer (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect to Living dinosaur, per BubbleEngineer's sources. A single sentence should cover it, in the "cryptozoology" section, and there's definitely not enough for a separate article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable folklore. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Living dinosaur per TMG and BubbleEngineer. Nanophosis (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is probably the first mention of the thing in writing, there's lots of material here to work with for a cryptid, though I do think it should be moved to Partridge Creek monster or Partridge Creek beast User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Living dinosaur. Plantdrew (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as merge to Living dinosaur, but subsequent discussion (reproduced below) indicates this is not a workable solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying here the discussion from my talk page subsequent to the first closure of this AfD, in the hope that it will help editors determine what to do with this article. Sandstein 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid) as a merge to Living dinosaur. There is a problem in the fact that the article Living dinosaur was not notified of this at all. There is no chance it fits in the article as this is not what the Living dinosaur article is about. Yes there is a cryptozoology section, but it's not a list of cryptids, it's a generalization section. If it goes anywhere in wikipedia it's probably List of cryptids but that's a different merge request, and of course "List of cryptids" would have to be notified. As it stands now a merge to "Living dinosaur" is invalid and should say as much in the merge closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen, Nanophosis, and Plantdrew:, you were in favor of merging, what is your view? Sandstein 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. My original idea was to add a short list of examples to the cryptozoology section of Living dinosaur, but after reading the current text on the page several times and thinking about it, I doubt it would be appropriate to create an "example" section just for one cryptid that doesn't even have a page anymore. After this consideration, I'd agree with Fyunck that the article should be either merged with List of cryptids with proper notification, or deleted entirely. Nanophosis (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes thanks for the ping. I'm persuaded by Fyunck and Nanophosis, but List of cryptids is nearly all a list of separate articles. Not sure what to do at this point: should we propose a merge, which would effectively be a re-run of the AFD discussion? The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would be an exact re-run. My guess is those that would tend to edit "Living dinosaur" would say a resounding "no" to the idea. The List of cryptids merge I'm not so sure about the outcome. Two other things that's a little strange with this. If it's a merge you usually merge the entire contents somewhere else, unless it's duplicate contents. Maybe you'd cut a little but mostly you merge it all. Redirecting and simply mentioning the name of the beast on another article is not a merge of content. Second, this beast was mentioned in an article of The Strand in France. I'm not convinced this was some made-up publicity stunt perpetrated by Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote often in the magazine, and whose book The Lost World came out a couple years later. But those are my musings. I don't really care if this stays as an article, is deleted, or gets merged, as long as it follows protocol and the mergeto article is notified of the discussion beforehand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to the article and found a few references. I've updated The Strand Magagazine reference, but there are a few earlier references, and at least one later:

Dupoy, Georges (15 April 1908). "Le Monstre de 'Partridge Creek'" [The Monster of "Partridge Creek"]. Je sais tout (in French). Vol. 4, no. 39. Paris, France: Pierre Lafitte & Cie. pp. 403–409 – via Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Staff writer (10 May 1908). "Duke of Westminster to Hunt the Partridge Creek Monster". Third. The Times-Democrat. No. 18, 286. New Orleans, Louisiana. p. 3 – via Newspapers.com.

Staff writer (10 May 1908). "Gigantic Keratosaurus, Seventy Feet In Length, Found Alive in Alaskan Backwoods". The Baltimore Sun. Vol. 142, no. 176. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 13 – via Newspapers.com.

Heilig, Sterling (17 December 1922). "Prehistoric Monster Still Haunts Arctic". 8: Books and Magazine. New York Herald. Vol. 86, no. 109. New York, N.Y. pp. 5, 7 – via Newspapers.com.

Almost all of it seems to be based on Dupuy's story. While the Je sais tout version appears to have been published before The Strand version, the composite image in the French version is separated into two complete images in the English version.--tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - By the way, the article this was potentially going to merged into is having an RfC on changes. Since it's related, See Talk:Living dinosaur if you wish to comment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by -tronvillain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 31 May 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.