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 Snowball keep (withdrawal requested by original nominator) (non-admin closure). ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has grown in scope and has been renamed to 2016 clown sightings

South Carolina clown sightings (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)

This is redundant to Evil clown#Phantom clowns, where it's already covered. I redirected the article there after someone merged it, but an IP editor reverted me. Rather than edit warring over this, I'm bringing it to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There sure are a ton of sources out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply one manifestation of phantom clowns, which are already described in detail in evil clown. This fails WP:NOTNEWS and has already been incorporated in the appropriate article. We're not actually going to have articles on every single clown sighting when some local paper reports a phantom clown, are we? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But evil clowns seems more suited to the trope of Clowns in horror films. There have been sightings of clowns in over a dozen states, as well as several school closures, many arrests, and many police departments on watch, Every single sighting getting its own article would be a bit much, but the sightings throughout the United States combines to create an event, that has been going on for over a month, which makes it Not News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.91.243 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "...not NOTNEWS" right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that

Good point NinjaRobotPirate. Every single sighting shouldn't get an article, but this is a cluster, so maybe GNG. If this ends in a redirect, maybe that section in evil clown could have subsections. You know, so it's not all lumped together and the redirect could go to the exact spot. Anyhow, this whole thing is giving me the creeps. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom clown is a possible spin-off target eventually, but it's not overwhelming evil clown yet. The whole thing strikes me as recentism, as this "clowns have been sighted in our town" thing flares up intermittently. It's become routine at this point and is best covered in the form of an overview, much like shark attacks are at shark attack. I put it in evil clown because it fit and the article was smallish. Once it's no longer smallish, I have no objections to a legit spinoff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this "...flares up intermittently..."?? Has there been such a cluster before? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar case in 1981, however what made that notable was that only children saw the clowns, never the parents. Also there were no arrests made or school closures, things I feel give credence to the 'current' epidemic.

I documented a few outbreaks of clown sightings in evil clown#Phantom clowns: 1981, 1985, 1991, 1995, 2008, and 2014. Those are just the major ones covered by reliable sources in overviews of the topic. There's also the Northampton Clown, who was a prankster. Following the Northampton clown, there have been a few other pranksters. It's silly to create articles on each epidemic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, NinjaRobotPirate. That makes sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Evil clown article can adequately cover the content, which is not large. BTW, I think there are problems with the layout of Evil clown. The depictions section seems over emphasized - it would be better at the end of the article (and probably better collapsed) - and is very disorganized. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield. It is at the end of the article. And collapsed? Since when do we collapse such content. Anyhow, that is a matter for the article talk page. Please feel free to bring it up there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at the end, "Response to evil clowns in media" and "Phantom clowns" are currently after the depictions section. Lists are sometimes collapsed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions, yes, you're right. Sorry. I didn't read carefully. Not a bad plan. And collapsed, well, I doubt that will be agreed upon at article talk. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that evil clown is a mess. I've been meaning to clean it up, but I always get distracted. Right now, it's this whole South Carolina thing. Once this gets resolved, we can work on cleaning up the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's spread outside South Carolina, hasn't it?

• Comment - Note that Coulrophobia#2016 "Creepy Clown" Epidemic exists. That is how I arrived here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and make a redirect to Evil clown#Phantom clowns. Even if GNG can apply, other guidelines and common sense say put this into evil clown. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete. The article is filling out and the clowns are spreading. Now Oregon, some school closures, and even a murder. This could be just the beginning. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is now way to big to fit into Evil clown. It easily passes GNG. There are probably hundreds of media stories on this now and it has spilled over into social media, has involved murder, assault, arrests, the involvement of the FBI, school closures and lockdowns around the nation, and Halloween is still a month away. This is an easy keep. NinjaRobotPirate, what do you think at this point? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just saw a news report moments ago on TV about creepy clown sightings in several neighboring towns. There was even footage of one of them. (The clown indeed looked creepy). Police were dispatched to deal with it. The newscaster mentioned it was also happening all over the country. So I looked it up on WP, and that brought me here. The phenomenon has gone viral, and is causing considerable disruption out there. So much so, it is getting significant coverage in the news. I think it has passed the notability threshhold. The Transhumanist 12:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this article is still a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The facts could be succinctly summarized at evil clown. But Wikipedians love turning encyclopedia articles into overly-detailed "news of the weird" newspaper articles, so I'm not surprised it's being expanded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was one of the editors who expanded it and I do not love turning encyclopedia articles into overly-detailed "news of the weird" newspaper articles. And what part of WP:NOTNEWS does this violate? As for WP:RECENTISM, well that is not policy, nor a guideline, but it still has value as an essay. I like the section "Recentism as a positive". The article can be eventually boiled down, surely. However, whether something of this magnitude should simply be a section within Evil clown is absurd at this point. I mean, murders, assaults, arrests, an FBI investigation, students not going to school en masse, school closures? Surely this should be a standalone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A portion of this clown epidemic may simply be pranks taken too far and social media freakouts over nothing, but another portion includes schools being shut down, people who have actually been attacked by clowns, and even a murder. I think it is wikiworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.91.243 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now). Otherwise the news froth will inundate a proper article. Just let this tempest blow itself out in this flagged work-in-progress and then decide what to do with the result a few months from now when (we hope) activity subsides. Jeffryfisher (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This phenomenon has also been reported in Canada, making this international. Re-evaluate after Halloween.--Auric talk 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, eh? Thanks for noticing that, Auric (love the new sig, by the way). I like the calls for keep with evaluate later. Maybe this will eventually get condensed and it could fit into Evil clown. But for now, it's too big, and as Jeffryfisher wisely points out, this would innundate Evil clown. Now to check Euro news for any spread there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – While I had not edited this article until recently, I have been watching it since the day it was created. I refrained from editing it, though, because I was doubtful it would survive any sort of AfD. However, as of late, it seems the subject has greatly broadened in scope and significance, and at the current time, it does not seem like it would be a good idea to eliminate this article from the encyclopedia. Dustin (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – bizarre but notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cut down. The phenomenon of '2016 clown sightings' appears to be notable, regardless of whether there's any real-world significance to it or if it's just an instance of mass hysteria; but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to list every single purported sighting, some of which are better sourced than others. It would be better by being reduced to a smaller number of representative examples of the trend, and turned into more of a general overview. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like consensus is against me, which is fine. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. We don't have to drag this out for an entire week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad one bit. You nommed this with perfect rationale when it was a teensy paragraph. Plus, your AfD calls are almost always spot on. And who knew it would balloon into a scary twenty sections and 3k hits a day. Anyhow, I guess we can close this as it will certainly be a keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're withdrawing this, then I think we can go ahead and close it. And as a withdrawal, it can be a non-admin closure. I'd do it myself, except I've never done it before and am not sure I want to start here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed my mind. I'm going to go ahead and try closing this. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is notable and sources are out there.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I stumbled across this from the Most Edited chart, but have been seeing this in the news so much I wondered where it was being covered. The concentration of these events in 2016 is notable at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepImportant article50.202.185.114 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect – Widespread epidemic with dozens of sources. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2016 (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.