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 with an additional consensus of Clean up, as it will be tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinning Man[edit]

Delete as per WP:NOTE and to some extent WP:V. A vanity article on an imaginary character. A google hit returns almost nothing[1]. The only link talks about this character is a discussion forum (which is also used as the only reference of this article). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep. No evidence of notability found from a google search. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I helped this new user flesh out this article because it had been tagged for a speedy (and rightfully so) in its original form. My Google turned up the discussion on the forum which I listed as a reference. The phenomenon warranted an entire chapter in a book by a notable author. While I have no interest in the subject, I am of the firm belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is more than enough room for something this esoteric. There is something truly wrong here when single-sentence nanostubs are allowed to stay and a fleshed-out article like this is not. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keel did write about The Grinning Man, but I can't find any evidence of any other significant coverage. One unreliable author writing about a supposed character isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whoopie. Some kids saw a strange looking man over 6 feet tall wearing a green outfit. You'd have to lower the bar for notability to atomic dimensions for this to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article because I have noticed a LARGE amount of cryptozoological articles and many people are interested in them. I have also noticed that there are MANY articles on wikipedia that are completely idiotic and they are not deleted, and some contain vulgar language which is why I do not understand why my article should be deleted. I included a lot of information, and I can also include much more which I will. I study a lot of cryptid phenomenon and I found this story very interesting, not to mention unique. Look at the wiki article for the Dover Demon for example. Why is that not deleted? It is just as "silly" as what I posted if not more.

Also, to the person calling "John A. Keel" an unreliable author, you need to do some studying yourself. Not only has Keel investigated personally almost ALL of his topics in his books, but he has traveled the whole world cataloguing and searching for cryptids, ET's, and other unexplainable phenomenon. Keel is a real life "Mulder" from the X-Files, and a real life Indiana Jones. Do not call an author unreliable if you do not know anything about them.

As for the sarcastic comment "Whoopie, some kids saw a strange looking man," there are many other sightings that have happened all over the world regarding "Grinning man" like entities, just because something is out of the ordinary then should we automatically disregard it? Even if it is fake, and it is a figment of the occult imagination, it should then cause us to study why our minds would think of such things, there is much to be learned about the mind that we still do not understand.

The Grinning man is ALSO mentioned in MANY OTHER BOOKS, not just "Complete Guide to mysterious beings" written by the previously so called "unreliable author" John A Keel. The Grinning man and his kin is also mentioned in the book Mothman and other curious encounters written by well known Cryptoozological investigator and author named Loren Coleman. It is mentioned in chapter 7 on page 133 and 146. If you are familiar with the Mothman phenomenon from the 60s, then the name Indrid Cold definitely rings a bell. Cold was also mentioned in the hollywood movie The Mothman Prophecies. Indrid Cold is actually a "grinning man". Grinning men are a sort of entity that is described in a lot of occult literature, ranging from aliens invading bedrooms, and demons invading bedrooms. Some of these cases deal with a "grinning man" looking entity that stares at you while asleep, then disappears when you try to make contact.

For those of you who do not have any understanding of occult, paranormal, or unexplained phenomenon litarature, do not set up my page for deletion. For those of you who do not read paranormal literature, then you will not know what the grinning man is WHICH IS WHY I MADE THIS ARTICLE. And those of you too close minded to realize that sightings such as this happen more often then you think, then do not read my article. Once again, keep in mind that this was a well documented account that has happened numerous times throughout history as part of occult and paranormal literature, not to mention it is mentioned in about 3 well known books (Complete guide to m. beings, mothman and other curious enc., and mysterious america)...It seems that most of you who are setting up the page for deletion have never read these books so you do not know what the grinning man is, well what if i went to an article that you created and i didn't know what it was or it sounded silly to me so I put it up for deletion??? Thats what you have done to me, and i tell you that there are thousands of other people like me who like to bundle up with a nice book about the paranormal at night and are very interested in the grinning man and other similar entities that belong in the unexplained, cryptozoology, and UFO wiki pages. --MTSPEED

Comment. If you have these books that discuss the Grinning Man, please add references to the article - the links to discussion forums are not good enough.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment I'm sorry but I do not know how to add references to books, since I'm rather new at this. If you wouldn't mind posting them for me, here are the references.

"The Complete Guide To Mysterious Beings" by John. A Keel. Mentioned in chapter 14 "The Grinning Man"
"Mothman and Other Curious Encounters" by Loren Coleman. Mentioned Chapter 7 "Keels Children" on pages 133 & 146.
"Mysterious America" by Loren Coleman mentioned in chapter 20 "Mad Gasser Of Mattoon and his Kin"
"Mothman Prophecies" by John A Keel. mentioned throughout the book as an entity named "Indrid Cold"

--MTSPEED

Has Jerome Clark ever written about the Grinning Man? He's probably the most reliable source for UFO-related topics. Zagalejo^^^ 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there is a Clark cite it would be gold. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even by UFO standards, there are no real sources here. "mentioned" is not substantial coverage. Integrate any worthwhile material into Mothman.DGG (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO COMMENT "..no real sources"??? So you consider legitimate, published books as unreal? There is a whole chapter related to this phenomenon in the book I mentioned earlier written by John A. Keel. And by "mentioned" I do not mean that the grinning man is in one or two sentences, I mean it is mentioned as a large majority of the chapter. Once again, you obviously do not read UFO or occult literature, so you have not heard of the grinning man.

What you people are doing is prompting a deletion on a subject simply because you have never heard of it. That I find very close minded, this is a case that has happened many times, which is why it is mentioned (remember what I mean by "mention") in 4 books, and most likely many more books. But then again, its easy for people to ridicule what sounds strange and discount things that they have never heard of. I'm really getting sick of the close minded individuals going around prompting deletions on topics they have never heard of. Once again, look through wikipedia and you will find numerous things that shouldn't even be on here for people to see, at least the topic for the page I have created is strange, interesting, different, and worthwhile to read.--MTSPEED

Keep: This entry can be sourced to both Keel and Coleman. Both are notable sources with a slid history of reporting on this kind of topic. When you have notable individuals considering a topic notable in notable publications, there is no other answer than to say that the topic is notable. I'm getting two vibes from this AFD. Firstly people with no actual interest in the subject matter are calling for its deletion on the grounds that they've not personally heard of it, and secondly people think that it should be deleted because they believe that the story is a myth. To both of these kinds of people I'd like to say that the grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are relative notability and contextual verifiability. This means that something must be notable within its field, and that it must be demonstratable that something wasn't invented by Wikipedia editors. This entry passes both criteria easily. Keel and Coleman both reference the topic within the context of the paranormal which confers notability on it, and the fact that they have referenced it at all confers verifiability on it. Hence this entry should stay. It doesn't matter whether actual subject matter is real or bunk. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bravo! Only one correction, however: I had no interest in the subject matter, but I was able to verify that it was doucmented by a well-known author, hence the fact that I tried to fix the article. I just don't understand this site anymore. A new admin just "declined speedy" on another article that's a single-sentence, clear-cut link spam because some "notability" was established. This is a real article with real notability and here we are discussing this real article's future. No wonder I've quit this site before. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have one author (Keel) who has written about this character, and another who has written , it seems, about Keel's writings on this character. The article states "Grinning Men are catalogued in many books and paranormal literature" - where's the evidence for this? Certainly not in the article, and nothing significant is found from a Google search. If the article included evidence of more coverage, it could pass on notability grounds. The article would need trimming down, to those statements that are backed up by sources, however.--Michig (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, I've verified that the topic is covered in books by at least 2 authors, so I think we can keep the article, but if it stays, it will either need properly sourcing or cutting down considerably.--Michig (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A little less "interview" and a bit more "encyclopedia" is in order. I'd become concerned about the tone as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY COMMENT: Thank you to those who checked and saw that there ARE notable books by notable authors written on this subject, rather than just right off the bat call the article false or imaginary without any knowledge of the topic in the first place. I've see a few other wiki articles on similar creatures/cryptids/aliens that dont have even HALF as many references that I posted, and not even half as much information.

Anyways, thank you again for those who originally believed by article to be fake but then realized and understood, doing their own information checks on the subject matter to see that it is real/documented. If you would like to edit the article please do, and please help me make the article's text more "encyclopedia" style, rather then the interview style that I incorrectly wrote it as. (since i am rather new at this) Thanks again for those who helped (MTSPEED (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep. If Keel and Coleman have sourced this then a press trail will exist. Its a bit too long and needs a big clean up. Google search and Wiki now have a partnership so for the public this Wiki entry will be an asset. Vufors (talk) 13:04, 14 February 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.