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. Although sources such as "Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com" and "Kooztop5.blogspot.com" obviously need to be purged from the article, the fact that dodgy sources are covering a topic isn't a reason to discount decent sources covering the same topic. I also have sympathy for the nominator's argument that sources surrounding fringe topics tend to proliferate by citing each other, but again, no convincing refutation has been made of the reliable sources presented here. As such, I cannot close this as anything other than "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Basically, a hoax. Apparently one that's been around a while and garnered a little bit press. Lots of sources in the article, but none appear to be WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep this is not a hoax, this is Connecticut (and Western Conne... er, Ohio/Michigan) folklore. Melon heads are akin to Bigfoot or the Headless Horseman. The article is sufficiently cited for what it is, and I've just now added two new sources that should pass the bar (the Connecticut Post, the Detroit Free Press). Markvs88 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The first three sources found by the Google Books search linked above have coverage in books published by Sterling Publishing, Rosen Publishing and Rowman & Littlefield, so this is obviously not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com, Kooztop5.blogspot.com, LiveJournal, and Damnedct.com are clearly not WP:RS, and should be removed, along with large unsourced sections such as the one about "Dracula Drive". What remains seems to have a decent amount of reliably-sourced coverage, but needs to be rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine. Remember, even reliable sources indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL stories from time to time, so publishing house or newspaper name alone shouldn't be the sole determining factor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with your statement, with the exception of Damnedct.com. It is regularly cited by other publications (including the Connecticut Post) which is a part of Hearst. It is most certainly reliable, though it is kitchy. Markvs88 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that any web site where "the voice of skepticism and reason" is also an astrologer[1] can be described as reliable, however much anyone else might cite it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said... kitchy. (I never said it was Scientific American!) Markvs88 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just kitchy, but also obviously unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the topic, let's face it... we have to assume a certain amount of "subculture reporting". Just like in the STEM articles we accept scientific papers that may or may not be accurate (ala [2]) because they just don't have any other outlet. Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never heard of 'em, and based on the sourcing they are clearly more of a hoax than established "folklore". I agree with the nominator that they lack notability for an article. Comparing them to extremely well known figures such as the Headless Horseman is an unconvincing argument as they are obviously nowhere near that level._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Never heard of 'em" must be one of the worst arguments for deletion that I have seen, and we are supposed to be evaluating the notability of the article subject, not the article, which involves looking for sources beyond those currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've never heard of Moon Hunters... let's delete that too! After all it is purely fiction. Or, are you saying that "Issaria" is real? Or have you done a survey in Connecticut and the old Western Reserve to see if its a thing? Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring the fact that a WP:ADHOMINEM argument is also a bad argument to use in deletion, those fictional articles make no attempt to assert that they are widely known by the general public. This article on the other hand, purports to be a "legend". Should a legend not be widely known? There is not enough evidence of such things to establish it as what it claims to be, a "legend" and folklore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, and that's what the sources say, do they not? Google "melonhead legend" and you get 5.4 million hits. Okay, fine re: Moon Hunters. Let me frame it better: how many things on List of cryptids have you never heard of? My guess is most of them (as it is for me). Melonheads are widely known here in CT... which is again what the sources (including notable newspapers) have stated. Markvs88 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Markvs88, you are really not doing this article any favours by citing numbers of Google hits etc. One encyclopedia edited by academics and published by an academic publisher (as I cited below) is worth any number of millions of Google hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Zxcvbnm, nobody has made any WP:ADHOMINEM argument here, but people have simply pointed out how ridiculous your argument (not you as a person) was when you said "Never heard of 'em". Do you really think that this encyclopedia should only cover topics that you personally, of all the people in the world, have heard of? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia aims to be at least as inclusive as print encyclopedias, and this print encyclopedia, from an academic publisher and edited by academics, has an entry of well over 1000 words for this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I can't speak for Ohio or Michigan, but this is a well known and well documented urban legend in Connecticut, and the CT sections of the article are correspondingly cited. Kuralyov (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – WP:GNG pass. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 30 January 2019 (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.