Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Pig

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. The people who argued to retain the argument are in majority and have policy based reasons to validate them. I'm leaving the floor open to merging since the discussion didn't point to a single specific target. If in the future, this turns out to be a flash in the pan, it can be renominated. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Pig

Fails notability and includes non rlevant info about other hunted pigs also not notable SqueakBox 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Other feral hogs and domestic hogs sections in the article, adds relevant info and context to the reader, you deleted half the article without any prior discussion on the article talk page. Then you placed an afd +tag on the article. I have put back the half of the article deleted by you. If you want to discuss that portions you want deleted do on the article talk page first, to avoid edit wars and to build a consensus, thank you. For notability I get Google = 454,000 hits which seems quite notable to me for something that happened less than one month ago. PianoKeys 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - um, did you see that ref list? Clearly passes WP:NOTE. It's been all over the news. As I pointed out below, 476 google news hits? The Evil Spartan 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being all opver the news doesnt indicate alone encyclopedic notability, much that passes through the news never reaches here and notability hasnt been proven, SqueakBox 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. It was notable enough to be in the news in Australia, and has drawn attention from PeTA, the NRA, and the Brady Campaign (and oddly enough, 2 of the 3 are favorable reactions). It is at least as notable as Hogzilla. The sections on that pig and the Coursey Hog should probably be reduced/removed, but that is not a sufficient impetus to delete the entire article. The Dark 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the off topic section and it has reduced the refs to 4, I dont think this shows notability, SqueakBox 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, well, perhaps 476 google news hits will do: [1]. The Evil Spartan 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article had been about large pigs in general, and maybe it's useful to have an article on the largest known pigs. Now it's just about one pig in particular, which, while covered on the news, is still just a news story. Friday (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews, not encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be notable, from the news coverage, but it does need balance as to the current debate over whether the pictures are faked; I note that one of the editors has removed sourced additions a couple of times. Fox News; ABC News; Google News search. Just sayin'. Tentative weak keep or transwiki as KillerChihuahua suggests. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but rename to Lost Creek Plantation and cover the hunting preserve, if it's notable, and mention this incident in that article. The incident doesn't really warrant a standalone article but it's a notable event that occurred at the hunting preserve. --W.marsh 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, we do have an article on Hogzilla. This is more perplexing than you'd think. --W.marsh 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. Total bollocks with no encyclopedic value whatsoever, but that doesn't seem to be an issue these days... Grumble grumble grumble grumble. The Land 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is a really bad argument to use on deletion discussions, The Land. Perhaps you'd care to offer stronger reasoning, or modify your position? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to! The consensus these days seems to be very inclusionist, to the point of including dozens of flash-in-the-pan media stories which are technically verifiable but utterly unencyclopedic. I don't think this is a good thing, but might as well be consistent. The Land 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going keep, seems to be something of a record holder. And damn, that's a lot of sausage. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Although the subject isn't particularly encyclopedic, the article does satisfy WP:RS, with four listed in the article and a number of Google News hits. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge with articles about other large pigs, such as Hogzilla. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - article is note worthy Google = 454,000 hits PianoKeys 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Well cited with reliable sources, but somehow, an inexperienced kid shooting a pig doesn't seem to be... too encyclopedic or noteworthy one year from now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable, yes, but unencyclopedic. Some things can be notable without being encyclopedic, just look at single-issue biography's getting tossed left and right. -M^ask? 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with caveat I will change it to Keep ~~if mentions of other pigs is sent elsewhere. The page should be about Monster Pig, not mention Hogzilla or Ton Pig or Hog Kong.~~ Info moved elsewhere. Change.--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this page suffers from a bad case of recentism. FrozenPurpleCube 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, to all those asking for a delete based on "unencyclopedic": what does that mean in this context? I understand that certain things like how-tos, guides, etc. are not suitable for Wikipedia, but how is an article about an object/event written, that contains general factual information, unencyclopedic? --Eyrian 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My stance is strictly due to the huge ammount of "Cruft" in the article. It's not about Monster Pig anymore, it's about Pigs that are considered to be Monsters. As is, I vote for deletion. If the other pigs are "butchered" out of the article, then I will change it to Support. --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely referenced to a range of notable reliable sources. I don't understand the "unencyclopedic" argument. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not an argument for delete without a specific rationale, which hasn't been provided. - Merzbow 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pig (or to a more specific species article, whichever one applies here). The attention about the pig in and of itself is ephemeral, and is confined to news media looking for a wacky story. However, the fact that is at the heart of the article, that pigs get this big, is of lasting significance and ought to be discussed in the article about pigs. --bainer (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose User Suggestion Above The last thing we need is "Trivia" on those respective pages.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it made international news headlines. Notability is easy to establish. A year from now people will be wanting to find out what the real deal about monster pig was. Stevage 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and move to wikinews. People trying to get attention through fraud don't need an article in an encyclopedia (at least no their own article) ... --194.7.246.43 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename. Meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Send it to peer review...has all the makings of a potential featured article...Wikipedia must have an article on every single one day wonder that shows up on the web. Snopes also looked it over...it's not yet a hoax...and if it is proven to be a hoax, we can add at least 50 more kb's detailing the investigation, the outcome and the other related issues...let's also create articles on every single person that was involved in the slaying of the monster pig (pigzilla), since their names are also in the news too, and the investigators, well, etc.--MONGO 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *cough* - David Gerard 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, no compelling reason to delete - David Gerard 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Wow, MONGO's idiotic-sounding sarcasm is actually witty (seriuosly). In fact, it nearly got me to change my opinion. I guess reverse psychology does work. However, I do still think this article will be notable in a few years (e.g., WP:NOT#PAPER, Hogzilla). The Evil Spartan 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose a name change to Big Snout...just because they call it monster pig, doesn't mean we have to. We already have "Bigfoot", so this just makes sense.--MONGO 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the link to the "evidence" that this might be a hoax is broken, and even so the story is significant for the time being. This is not causing any harm to anybody and can await proper verification without risk to life, limb or sanity. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The more I hear about this story, the more I fret for both the ultimate fate of Alabama, and, to a lesser degree, enormous wild hogs. It may yet turn out to be a rare land-borne manatee, in which case the full scope of the tragedy of this news piece/hoax will be revealed. —808 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PIG as all pigs are inherently notable. Pharamond 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would also suggest merging it with some ground beef, garlic and other spices. Pharamond 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or edit for neutrality.There is debate about the authenticity of the claim and the images. There is no certified weight. Images appear to use forced perspective to make the animal appear larger. Attempts to edit this page for neutrality, allowing for the possibility of a hoax have been quickly changed back to the non neutral POV. User:haans42

Keep or merge. WP:NOT#PAPER seems to me a good reason to keep; there's no reason we can't have a "fun" article with proper sources and apparent notability. I also think that deleting parts of the article before bringing it up before AfD prevents editors from easily seeing how the article truly stands - no need to chop it down before the AfD. --Edwin Herdman 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add to watchlist... Tom e r ^talk 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable for an encyclopedia, its fifteen minutes of fame are almost up. Transwiki may be appropriate here however. Kuroji 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. It's been reported by major national and international news organizations, which would seem to establish notability. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I oppose this article's existence as it's more and more apparent it's a hoax, but it does pass WP:N and has had the proper coverage. This debate should have taken place after the whole episode is proven or disproven. --Korranus 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question Comment by 155.104.37.17
Keep, notable. Everyking 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As Redxiv says, its been reported by major media outlets, such as fox news and msnbc. If we delete this (as Kuroji thinks), then we should also delete articles such as May 2007 RCTV protests, since they both cover recent events.^Ideology_{Talk to me} £ 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news organization, last I heard. I do wish it would make up its mind to be an encyclopedia. Don't we have Wikinews for things like this? It's a passing cultural fancy--here today, gone tomorrow. -Jmh123 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it managed to get in the news as far afield as Australia and the UK, if that's not notable I don't know what is. Question mark over authenticity though. NeilSenna 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye...like I said above..."add to watchlist"... this is going to take some monitoring... :-p Tom e r ^talk 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete'' per "Wikipedia is not a tabloid." Will this article be worth having in five years? Will this article be maintainable in five years? No and no. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What criteria does a news event have to satisfy in order to become appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia instead of Wikinews? Sancho 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's becoming more and more apparent this is faked, and may even be a promotional scam. The "feral pig" was advertised even before the "game" reserve had taken i from its owners. A timeline of the event is at http://www.astrobio.net/stinkyjournalism/newsdetail.php?id=51 . Also the doctoring of the photos is not even doubtful. look at http://66.226.75.96/pig/ The only newsworthy thing about this is how gullible news outlets are. Administrator please delete this anonymous IP addition, these edits are done by vandals who do not even bother to register. PianoKeys 10:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:NOT#PAPER and it is useful to have some articles documenting hoaxes/one-day-wonders/media frenzies (propagating as far as Australia — see above) that may be used in articles about those topics. I doubt if space would be used in those articles to document this incident as fully as this article likely will. Also, unlike Bigfoot, it is unlikely to endure as an object of belief and hence will not require continued removal of WP:RS violations. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Follows all policies reliable sources, verifiability, no original research and is notable (mentions in Australia, potential world hunting record if verified as wild). Vultur 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please we are not a paper encyclopedia there are many good sources for this yuckfoo 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's well-written and had a fairly wide impact, however inexplicable. If in 6 months or a year it's vanished from public concerns, let it be renominated then. Dcoetzee 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to tally and close nomination. 5 days are up.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:52, 4 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.