Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster of Monterey

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 Speedy delete per SNOW and really not any content in the article.

Monster of Monterey[edit]

What's the Monster of Monterey? You wouldn't know if from this article, which was denied a Speedy Delete. A Google search determines that someone named Sharon Novak saw what she said is a Nessie knockoff in the Pacific Ocean. Although this was dramatized in a recent episode of the Animal Planet show "Lost Tapes," Google searches come up with nothing to confirm notability of the monster as part of the cryptozoological lore, nor am I able to find any reliable news sources that give Ms. Novak's claim any attention. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One speculative sentence making an unsourced link between one hardly credible account of an unspecified monster to another hardly more credible monster (but at least one that has had plenty of secondary coverage) does not make for any kind of article, not even a worthy stub. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree wih malleus. One unsourced, uncredited sentence that has little notability. Andy (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is totally unsupported. Speedy delete would have been so much easier. Truthanado (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = Why was this denied a speedy delete, anyway? The Google search mentioned by the denying admin turns up a whole bunch of garbage. These are the first three hits on Google:[1][2][3] Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability is established, no references, only one sentence. moocowsrule 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete~~Delete~~. (I can has snowball?) Per the above, I can't find any reliable sources that would elevate the subject matter beyond junk science or a non-notable hoax, and the article has (almost) no content. TheFeds 03:16, 22 December 2008 (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.