Deletion of East River Monster

Comment: meets . At a minimum can be merged to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases so deletion is unsupportable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:FRINGE, , , , , take your pick. I'm really sorry, but are you kidding me? Sources talking about government conspiracies and coverups, rat armies, secret labs? People who cannot tell the difference between a pig, a dog, a rat, a raccoon and what have you? And "reporters" jumping on the blogosphere bandwagon, with the Telegraph reporting that they're doing it? And that's supposed to be ''reliable'' sourcing? No
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATION||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: It's an interesting topic and it seemed likely that there would be more articles of this sort and so it proved.  Our article globster links to several other articles about mysterious carcasses and so, per our |editing policy, it makes sense to retain another well-documented case to help this topic area, *ahem*, ripen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, per . At a glance, I didn't see any mention of the carcass still existing for further verification. If this is the case, there is unlikely to be  or  connected with this story
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: Sources abound, but they're all from July and, as |notability is not temporary and the East River Pig or whatever it is has not generated any more "widespread coverage", I'd say it's not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I would like to add that, in my opinion, the outcome of this debate lies on how one wants to perceive this case. On one hand, one might argue , , and , plus the fact that there is ample sources and the subject being unusual in the sense to say that it is no usual animal. General notability seems to be met. But on the other end, naysayers might resort to arguing with the backup of Wikipedia policies like , , , , 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP||WP:PRESERVE||WP:FRINGE||WP:SENSATION||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per  and . This topic has received international coverage in reliable sources. Examples: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9429010/Monster-washes-up-on-New-York-beach.html, http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/new-east-river-monster-is-not-a-pig.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a #NEWS|newspaper. All the coverage is in roughly a 5 day window, indicating that the topic has no lasting notability or |persistence ("''Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle''"). The Event has had no |effect ("''An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. ''")since it featured in newspapers at the end of July. The |depth of coverage is insufficient, with most repeating the same claims; there is no source that goes particular in depth, rather they just repeat the same quotes from the interested parties, the telegraph for example, is just a rehash of the other websites. The |diversity of coverage  isn't great either, with most just repeating the material of each other. It fails every measure of events notability Wikipedia:Notability_(events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:EFFECT||WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE)