Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp

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The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn) Corpx 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp

This page has had a number of differing incarnations, but (short of looking through all revisions) I didn't see anything approximating a notability qualifying source. The page suffers from both lack of verifiability, and lack of proof of notability through the provision of multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the older incarnations were better than the current version, but no real assertion of notability beyond allegedly sparking reports across a whole county. Further, while police reports (present in some versions of the article), are certainly reliable sources for quoting individuals, since anyone who "reports" something like this can end up making one, it's no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Zagalejo had me with his pile of sources. Someguy1221 08:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a non-notable hoax Corpx 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See [1] [2] and [3] before calling the article an outright hoax immediately.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your sources seem to be blogs, which have dubious value vis a vis WP:RS, and in fact cite this very article in support of their claims. I can't find any reliable sources online. I support Deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is South Carolina's reptilian version of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. It's been featured in numerous books with a cryptozoology/"supernatural South" theme. Thanos6 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that there was an article in Boys' Life about the Christopher Davis story. I'm sure I can scrounge up a few more sources to show that this is a notable local legend. Please let this AFD run; I'll be back later! Zagalejo 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep: While it might not be notable in the same way that the JKF assassination was notable to America or Communism was notable to the world, it has entered into regional popular culture/urban myth, making it adequately notable within its specific field. - perfectblue 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a quick note to remind people that this entry should be about "the claim of the existence of a creature", not "the actual existence of the creature". Therefore editors should primarily be concerned with the verifiability/notability/accuracy of claims and their contents, rather than the zoological reality of any actual creature.

While this might seem like a rather cryptic point to make it is nevertheless an important one because, as a paranormal entry rather than a scientific one, it means that that the creature can be just as notable as a hoax or a myth as it can an actual physical creature.

perfectblue 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a sub-regional level cryptid. Find suitable documentation from a reliable source (always the problem, these days), and catalogue appropriately. --Chr.K. 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone please actually give a reliable source to prove notability? Someguy1221 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of interest, how would you go about doing this for an entry that you waned to see saved from deletion? For example, would you consider a single citation from a big name newspaper like the NYT as sufficient, or would you consider a topic to be notable if it received widespread coverage in half a dozen lesser newsapers? Alternatively, would you look for a mention of it by a big name paranormal writer such as Clarke? - perfectblue 07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That seems more like a question for my talk page. Someguy1221 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zagalego seems to currently be doing just that, as said just above. --Chr.K. 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have so far:

Newspaper articles (all available on Factiva):

Randall Floyd. "Lizard Man Stories Tell of Dangerous Creature." The Augusta Chronicle. 19 November 2000. F02.
Cindy Horswell. "Lizard man leaves mark; tale still told in sleepy S.C. town." Houston Chronicle. 30 July 1989. 14.
"To keep a monstrous legend alive, man admits lying about Lizard Man." Houston Chronicle. 13 August 1988. 3.
Stephen Milligan. "Sightings of a monster lizard from the swamp has struck terror into a small community in South Carolina." The Sunday Times. 7 August 1988.
"Youth Who Saw 'Lizard Man' Gets an Agent." San Francisco Chronicle. 2 August 1988. A4.
Wayne Beissert. "On the lookout for 'Lizardman'; Monster sighting enthralls SC town." USA Today. 27 July 1988. 3A.
"Bigfoot Researcher Says Lizard Man Is `Skunk Ape'" Associated Press. 27 July 1988.

Books which devote a page or more to the legend:

Allan Zullo. The Ten Creepiest Creature in America. Troll, 1997.
Mark Moran and Mark Scuerman. Weird US. Sterling, 2004.

If these are inadequate to establish notability, I can probably scrounge up a few more sources. I admit that the books sources are iffy in terms of reliability, but the newspaper sources should count. If nothing else, they show that there has been widespread interest in the Lizardman stories. Zagalejo 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be...Someguy1221 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the 15th of August 1988, the Washington post ran a story about a man named Kenneth Orr who admitted perpetrating a lizard man hoax. The story was titled "Lizard Man Claims a Casualty". As far as I'm concerned, this is an account from a reliable, notable and NPOV source which verifies this topic. - perfectblue 08:21, 24 June 2007 (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.