Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beast of Bevendean

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 redirect to British big cats. So, this is a redirect, not a deletion. The content remains in case better sources appear in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beast of Bevendean

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Redirect to British big cats. Current article has five sources but they are all from the same local news paper. Searched Google, Google Scholar, and Google News, majority of sources for this are about the movie Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean, a handful of articles from the same news paper, and one Ukrainian journal article that lists it as a mythozoonyms (has a proper name but does not exist). Redirect to British big cats is the right call for this article as it's material will fit in better there and be able to be seen in context. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Attempted to speedy delete but it was contested, looking to redirect to British big cats. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand: The article is a +stub with several supporting citations and will expand over time. This is all that is required for an article to be accepted at Wikipedia. Duck Dawny (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC) sock !vote struck[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure really what more can be done to expand this article. Would you prefer it if it was sent to draft instead so you can work on it? You might have access to materials and sources that aren't online but it might take some time to gather etc. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please just leave the article right where it is...where it should be. Thank you Duck Dawny (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. As it currently is, there is nothing in this article that shows it has WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. A short paragraph at British big cats would work fine. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see anything here that shows extensive coverage.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a bit of rearranging and added sections and references. I believe this subject passes our notability guidelines now. As an aside, I was astonished just how many "Beast of..." articles there are, and one is a snapping turtle (Beast of Busco)! The Beast of Bevendean is covered in books, articles and in a movie, so it is fitting that we also cover the subject. See other UK Big Cat articles: Beast of Bodmin Moor, Beast of Buchan, Beast of Exmoor, Beast of Gévaudan (Possible wolf -France) Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the majority of sources for this article are news articles from a one (I presume the local) newspaper, with the others being cryptozoological compendiums (not exactly discriminating in their material) and a single low-budget children's movie. The newspaper articles are all within a relatively short (3 year) time span as well, which brings up the issue of WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that there are other "Beast of..." articles in immaterial per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said before, this article lacks significant coverage and notability. After reviewing the sources, it warrants a sentence or two on the British big cat article at most. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: I am sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However it explains the well-established principle that each article should meet the notability requirements on its own merits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I believe it does. I have added several more references. We just have so many contradictory policies, guidelines and essays and they are all cited as equally important. Perhaps have a look at the article again. I would find more but I may be wasting my energy if the participants are not inclined to consider the additions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking on the article, including just now. I have yet to see anything that represents significant coverage and notability. I cited OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because for some reason you brought up other British Big Cats (and, bafflingly, a French wolf), as if having an article on one justifies an article on all. Which it most assuredly does not. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per SilverTiger12 (surely one of their related species is well qualified on this topic :) ). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British big cats. The only in-depth coverage all is from The Argus (Brighton), a local newspaper; the rest is about the movie (another article). I'm not convinced that this merits a standalone article. Just assuming that more sources will be found later does not suffice; we will need some more now. And I couldn't find any. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: Notability and WP:V can be determined with WP:RS even if it is local. There is not a distinction in the guideline WP:GNG points 3, 4 and 5. This subject has a movie about it, and an in depth source. We keep articles with far less. There are more sources out there to show that it has worked its way into popular culture: It has its own beer!. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Good point there, I didn't say that right. These local newspaper sources do count, but I'd argue that per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" even multiple mentions in the same local newspaper do not signify notability. Because if not, I could quickly write 10+ articles about local sportspeople from my hometown, who happen to have been featured a lot in the local newspaper – they are not notable, of course; and that same reasoning leads me to reject the refs to The Argus (Brighton) as sufficient alone. The beer also is a fun fact, but again I could name two dozen local craft beers, whose name does help nothing in establishing notability for their namesake. I'd be much more lenient if repeated coverage was only from one newspaper, but that one happened to be The Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or some other, major and supra-regional paper. As it stands, I don't see enough sources for a stand-alone article, yet I also see enough coverage to not have this simply deleted. A redirect (& mention in that other article) can preserve the information in a way that still informs people interested in it. btw, "We keep articles with far less" sounds a bit like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you criticized above ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh..."We keep articles with far less" is me saying we have WP:V and WP:N and there are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. But I already struck my ivote. I can't tilt at windmills over an abominable snowman article. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: I know, I was only teasing you, hence the smiley ;) But anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion; there's no need to strike your vote if you believe the sources suffice; in this case it isn't as clear as in many others. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since it is an example of the folklore of British big cats. The Brighton Argus source and the local beer source could be used for a subsection at British big cats, but they are not enough to justify a stand alone article. And sources like this are not reliable per WP:FRIND. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Expand, & Flag. It just needs a more citations needed banner at top. This cat legend has a movie based on it, as compared to the big cat articles Beast of Bodmin Moor and Beast of Exmoor. 5Q5|^✉ 11:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@5Q5: I agree that would be the way to go if there were sources. AfD is not cleanup, so if a lack of citations in the article was the issue, we'd flag the article and improve it. The issue at hand is, imo, a dearth of sources we could use for that. Reliable, independent sources are as elusive as the beast itself, it seems; and in that way it does not compare to e.g. the Beast of Bodmin Moor, which was discussed by the BBC and The Independent. You'd greatly help the keep cause if you could identify some. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Argus is a notable newspaper which has covered this topic well and, of course, there was an entire film built around the animal. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it just the local newspaper covering this? Are there any police reports of people calling to report it? Doesn't England have security cameras on every single street? Dream Focus 05:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British big cats seems reasonable to me. This appears to be a local curiosity and would fit well in that larger article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who contested the speedy deletion has been banned for being a sock. Just letting people know incase they wondered why they stopped participating. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:54, 16 September 2022 (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.