Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete. And I don't really see one to merge either... but that's harder to tell from an AFD. W.marsh 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot in popular culture

Bigfoot in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As bigfoot is solely a cultural phenomenon, the main article already possesses all the scholarly and citable analysis. What is left is what we have here: a trivia collection, consisting of minor references, common subjects, and one-off jokes. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I split off this pile of old tut list to help reduce the overlong Bigfoot article (as per WP:SIZE), and I don't give a stuff about its continued existence. Do as you will. Totnesmartin 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: I would have to disagree. Among this list are quire a few notable examples of how bigfoot has influenced or crossed over into independently notable pop-culture elements, making Bigfoots impact on popular culture notable in itself. I would also point out that precident is on the side of this entry. There are already many other similar entries, such as: Yeti in popular culture, Loch Ness Monster and popular culture, The Bermuda Triangle in popular culture, Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. I also vote to keep on the grounds that this information if valuable but detracts from serious discussion in the main bigfoot entry and so does not really belong there. - perfectblue 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Good point about distracting from the serious discussion. Let me investigate that further. – Dreadstar † 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not important. If you wish, I will watch the Bigfoot article and prevent these entries from creeping back in there. --Eyrian 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I commend your willingless, but you've nominated far too many pop culture articles to carry out the job effectively for many of them. Besides, the Bigfoot article isn't going to die any time soon. -- Talk 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Better there than here does not apply as I am arguing that it is a notable topic in itself, that argument only applies in cases where a fork is created between a notable topic and non-notable content that people try to exclude by forking off. Notability is inherited also does not apply as portrayals in popular culture can be notable in themselves. As for Other stuff exists, I'm afraid that I am not in consensus with this. It is just a personal opinion (which I a allowed to express here), but if president and consensus state that a related topic is viable, then it should be able to be used as an argument. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also keep in mind that the referenced articles are essays, not policies. To be frank, I don't find the opinions you referenced to be particularly persuasive either. For example, the only argument against BHTT is "information is no less trivial for being in its own article" - but the pro-BHTT argument typically has nothing to do with the quality of the material; rather it suggests that moving trivial content would help keep the main article clean and not bombard readers with material that they probably aren't interested in. -- Talk 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are essays. And? This does not detract from the fact that they are still incredibly weak arguments. No one has been able to cite policy and/or guideline in order to support a keep !vote in an AFD discussion for any IPC articles, and for a good reason: nothing exists. María (críticame) 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "There is no policy mandating that the article in question be kept, therefore the article should not be kept" is a non sequitur. There is no clear policy favoring either side of the debate, hence it is appropriate to examine the merits of the arguments presented. Perfectblue presented an argument for the preservation of the article, you attacked the argument by referencing an essay and concluding that perfectblue's argument was "not viable" for an AfD discussion, and I challenged the merits of the said essay. You seemingly grant (implicitly, at least) my response that the essay has no bearing on the weight of perfectblue's argument, and you have yet to give a reason for perfectblue's argument being "incredibly weak" as you claim it is. After all, what is there to weigh the argument again? Server space/bandwidth? Not very compelling, seeing as the cost of maintaining the article in the database for 10 years is roughly one tenth of a penny. -- Talk 06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have given my reasons for deletion, and bandwidth was not one of them. I cited policy. I would also like to point out that I did not "attack" Perfectblue's argument, but rather (correctly) stated that his reasons for keep are depreciated in most AFD discussions. There is no contesting this fact. María (críticame) 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The essays you sighted are open and can be modified by anyone, whether it's an administrator or an anonymous user, or whether it reflects consensus or not. They are no more official than any argument presented by you or me. I have pointed out why I think the section referenced doesn't apply to this discussion. -- Talk 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The essays aren't being used as a reason to delete, they are being used to refute the arguments that have been made frequently but contain no merit. The reason for deletion is that the article is just a collection of loosely associated topics and fails WP:NOT#DIR, which is policy. No argument for keeping as been presented in the spirit of any policy or guideline. The only thing supporting the "keeps" is WP:BASH which says "Go ahead and make bad, meaningless arguments. No one can stop you." Jay32183 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Jay, I think you're attacking a straw man. I understand that the essays referenced were in response to an argument for keep, rather than an argument for deletion; I don't think I said anything that would imply otherwise. In fact, I didn't cast a vote for keep - all I did was point out that the referenced essay fails to "refute the arguments that have been made frequently" and does not establish that they "contain no merit." I'd rather not get involved in a policy-based dispute when the sighted policy (]]WP:NOT#DIR]]) is so ambiguous, but frankly I think the comparison to "a list of loosely related topics" is rather shaky. In fact, five of the nine content-base sections in the questioned article are written in natural prose rather than list format. Some of the material (including many of the listed facts) is probably only loosely associated, but it's fairly obvious that much of the content is very closely related to the subject of Bigfoot - most of the Advertising section, the whole Conventions section, five movies which have "Bigfoot" in their titles, some of the novels, the "don't kill Bigfoot" law, "The Bigfoot Song," and a couple of the TV shows such as Bigfoot and Wildboy. Remember, as per WP:DP, "this article needs cleanup" does not equate to "this article should be deleted." -- Talk 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unsourced violation of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Primary sources are not acceptable in IPC articles because they only prove the reference's existence and not its impact on PC. What is needed here (and which will probably be near impossible to find) are reliable, third-party sources. Without this, the references are irrelevant, indiscriminate, and trivial. Any noteworthy depictions (such as films that portray Bigfoot as a major character) can be merged back into the parent article. María (críticame) 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Bigfoot. If some of the lists are reduced per WP:Lists in Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Lists, then article size wouldn't be an issue, and it would be a good addition to the main article. – Dreadstar † 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bigfoot. Though I take exception to the nominator's characterization that bigfoot is solely a cultural phenomenon. Bigfoot is REAL. - Crockspot 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge back - The bigfoot article has been dealing with size issues for a while now, and is currently very nicely sized at ~ 27K. Adding this stuff back in would once again bloat the main article. As for keeping or deleting the stuff, I'm in general "weak delete" for "popular culture" articles. So overall I'm weak "delete" and strong "no merge". - TexasAndroid 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The current size for Bigfoot is about 13kb, according to a calculation performed per Article size..just fyi..;). I do recommend reducing the current content of BFinPC quite a bit, though...if we're going to merge the two. – Dreadstar † 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where you get the 13K figure. Looking at the article's history, which for the last few months has listed exact sizes, shows the size of Bigfoot as 27,772 bytes, or around 27K, as I quoted. The size of Bigfoot in popular culture is 12,976 bytes, so maybe that's where you got the 13K figure. But put them back together and you are over 40K, which is over the recommended size of articles. And it's an increase that, IMHO, is for no good purpose. Either the material belongs on the project or it does not belong on the project. If it does not belong in it's own article, then IMHO it does not belong adding almost 50% more to the main bigfoot article. - TexasAndroid 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my calculations are quite correct. I provided a handy link to how I calculated the 13K figure, I'll post again for you: Article size - Readability issues, specifically this note: exact list. The size indicated by the article history includes content that is not counted when calculating article size for readable prose, which is the primary standard for size limitations now that browsers are technically able to handle much larger sizes than when we first came up with the 32kb size limit. For example, readable prose excludes External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and etc. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to discuss on my talk page. – Dreadstar † 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Bigfoot in popular culture sizes out at about 9K, so the combined total would be 22K. My concern would be the large number of lists, which should be significantly reduced if the article is kept or merged. – Dreadstar † 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I see the problem. You are arguing the "readability issues" section, I am arguing the "technical issues" section. Both are there, both have their places. And both our numbers are right for the sections we are arguing. It still remains that above 32K is not great from a technical issues standpoint, and while the "Article Size" article says not to rush to split at 32K, that is still the threshold it talks about. And in this case we are not rushing to split, we already have them nicely split. And IMHO I still have seen no good reasons presented why they should be merged as a way to prevent the data from being deleted. As I said earlier, either the data is worth having on the project, in which case it should be fine as a separate article, or it's not worth having, in which case it should be removed from the project. - TexasAndroid 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we're arguing the very same thing: article size. The technical reasons for the 32k limit are no longer binding. Only the main body prose should be counted toward an article's total size. I don't mean to press this issue, but I think it needs to be clear. Check out the thumb rule too.– Dreadstar † 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as both the people who want them in the article and those who want them separate agree that there is content worth keeping, then the merge is an editing qurestion. DGG (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because others have said keep? Nice. --Eyrian 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the sourced parts to Bigfoot to eliminate the listcruft.--JForget 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I know, I've seen variations on the concept that "the main article already possesses all the scholarly and citable analysis". As with Bermuda Triangle, the main article looks at claims and skepticism from people debating whether Bigfoot is real. In popular culture, I think it's well established that Bigfoot is not scary, but rather a fun, big dumb character that can be portrayed in many different ways. Trying to do a scholarly analysis of Bigfoot is like trying to do a scholarly analysis of talking dogs. Mandsford 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge it back. This information is mostly bulked up and could easily be merged back into the original article if cut down and cleaned up. I see no need to make this article seperate from the main one. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG MERGE A strong merge with the Main 'Big foot' article after shortening the article.Sauron 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete like the Bermuda Triangle, the article should cover the pop culture aspect because that's all there is to it. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - I have removed the more loosely related trivia references from the article in question. Needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion, but it seems to have been the source of many complaints in this AfD nonetheless. My quick cleanup may not have been entirely comprehensive, and I left many borderline references intact, but I think the improvement is significant. Please do a little research before claiming that the large majority of the references are only loosely related; some sections did contain many loose references, but there are many very close references as well. Again, it was a quick job and I avoided the references that seemed borderline, but it should do for now. -- Talk 23:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - after reviewing the material within the article, it seems clear that the subject is highly notable, and that the commonly sighted WP:NOT#DIR RfD doesn't apply as it might with other popular culture articles. I don't see anything in WP:NOT#INFO that relates to the article in question. Notability is clear, and I see no clear reason for deletion. -- Talk 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT#DIR still applies. The article is still a collection of loosely associated topics. It is not a problem that can be fixed. Also, the notability of "Bigfoot in popular culture" has not been established. Most of the sources are from IMDb. The fact that WP:NOT#DIR is cited frequently is because there is a severe problem with many Wikipedia articles, all of which should be deleted eventually. Also, you are completely incorrect in your above statement that WP:BTHH and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS were not being used correctly. The "keep" being refuted said "there are other articles like this one" and "this information is important but detracts from the main article". Jay32183 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How are the topics listed loosely associated? Again, I may not have done a perfect job, but the most of the listed items are cultural references that are very closely related to the topic of Bigfoot. A TV show in which Bigfoot makes a one-time appearance does not constitute a close relationship, but a movie centered around the subject of Bigfoot does. The vast majority of the article falls into the latter category, and if there are a few items that fall into the former then they can be removed. I do not see how one can reasonably say that an assortment of movies, books, etc. which all revolve around the subject of Bigfoot can be "loosely associated." -- Talk 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I never said anything regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so again you are attacking a straw man and not an argument I made. I also did not say that WP:BHTT was used incorrectly (though perfectblue did; you can argue with him her if you must); I just pointed out that the only attack the essay makes against the BHTT argument is "the information is no less trivial for being in its own article." As I said, this does not actually refute the BHTT argument, which is not that "moving information makes it less trivial" but rather that "moving information (in certain cases) helps keep articles clean and avoids large clusters of loosely associated info"; therefore the essay's commentary on BHTT is an ignoratio elenchi and has no bearing on the merits of perfectblue's argument. -- Talk 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That should be "her", perfectblue is a she...;) – Dreadstar † 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, my mistake. -- Talk 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
        • This is a collection of loosely associated topics, because the things listed are not associated with each other. Two TV shows about Bigfoot do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. An other stuff exists and a better here than there argument were made, they were refuted, and you started complaining about it, so it is not a straw man. perfectblue made the exact WP:BHTT argument. "I also vote to keep on the grounds that this information if valuable but detracts from serious discussion in the main bigfoot entry and so does not really belong there." That says "keep because this article keeps that article in a better condition" which is exactly what WP:BHTT says not to do. You haven't presented a sound argument, you're just throwing out "fancy" words and phrases to make it look like you have. perfectblue's argument has no merit, neither does yours. Jay32183 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Let's not pursue a debate that revolves around interpreting the word "associated" in a policy article. There's no wording committee, no minutia-focused review process, etc. -- the ambiguity is evident, and that's enough to say that a decision in this case should not be largely policy-based, especially considering the massive generalization and oversimplifications that policy articles have to make and keeping in mind WP:IGNORE. Again, I didn't say anything regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so please don't fault me for "complaining about it." I only contested the WP:BHTT essay section, which clearly presents only a logical fallacy (as explained previously) and so should not be considered. -- Talk 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
            • The only logical fallacy is in your head. We do not keep articles to use as content filters. Also, the only way you can claim these items are not loosely associated is to claim that the entire article is original research. Both result in deletion, so there's no point in making that argument. Jay32183 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
              • What are "content filters"? Why must an article that is not a list of loosely associated topics be original research? Does this mean we should delete all articles on Wikipedia? Please, let's just drop it - this is headed nowhere other than WP:POINT. Let's be WP:COOL and WP:CIV. -- Talk 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Don't use the "you're a jerk" defense. You do not understand what is going on here. This article was forked because the content was not appropriate for the main article. The problem with that is that the content should be deleted not forked. Also, we are only talking about this article. I'm claiming this is a collection of loosely associated topics. Your problem with that has been the "loosely associated" part, but you know that Wikipedia policy is against that. Therefore, you must be claiming that this is a collection of closely associated topics. It is original research to claim that two works of fiction are closely associated simply because they both involve Bigfoot. You said "moving information (in certain cases) helps keep articles clean and avoids large clusters of loosely associated info". That is what I mean by content filters. We do not make one article to keep information out of another article. When you make a split for summary style it is because you wanted all of the content in the article, but there was just too much. If you want content out of the article to keep it clean you don't give it its own article, you delete it. You must not understand WP:POINT. I am allowed to present an argument to prove a point. I am not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia processes to prove a point. Jay32183 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • No original research does not mean that we're not allowed to think for ourselves. Your logic leads to infinite regression - by your logic a source would be required to verify a factual statement like "Bush is the president," and then another source would be required to verify that "Bush being the president is notable," and then more sources to verify that those sources are reliable ones, and then additional sources to verify those sources, and so on. So we would eventually be forced to delete every article in the database. It's an extreme example, yes - but I don't think my implicit claim that, say, "the movie titled Bigfoot is relevant to an article about Bigfoot" is particularly contentious either. Even this AfD topic requires that we exercise our own judgment, since there isn't a Lexis article which tells us whether to delete or keep. Again, I never advocated the BHTT argument (though I don't find your refutation persuasive, since you assert what we should do without giving reason for why we should do it); I only defended it from an essay-based refutation that I think has no logical substance. -- Talk 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without secondary sources providing an outline, this is simply original synthesis which reflects no more than the editors whims. Failing deletion, merge back into bigfoot, where most of it should be removed anyway, but I don't see much redeemable material here. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Luke, what sources are being synthesized? Synthesis in the context of WP:SYN means combining sourced material with original analysis (lots of good explanation and discussion here). Of course some minimalistic original analysis analysis is always necessary, like the fact that Bush is the president justifies writing "Bush is the president" in his Wikipedia article. If you think that some synthesis being done throughout the article is contentious, could you point it out? --xDanielxTalk 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unsourced analysis is not allowed at all. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If some one else didn't already say it, then it has no business being on Wikipedia. Jay32183 15:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. As Jay points out, this isn't even quite synthesis because nothing is sourced at all. If it were sourced, it would be a trail of primary sources which we're compiling into a new list. Unless there really are secondary sources, we have no idea how to weight or edit this list. The result is an original synthesis. That's the fatal flaw here: no secondary sources to establish WP:N, or ensure against WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • May I ask again what "unsourced analysis" you are referring to? What kind of contentious analysis is required to establish that movies, books, etc. with "Bigfoot" in their name, or which by common sense clearly have a high relevancy to Bigfoot, are related to Bigfoot? Or perhaps you are suggesting that labeling books, movies, etc. as cultural items constitutes original analysis? Do we really need a Lexis article to tell us that movies are cultural? --xDanielxTalk 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The claim that the items on the list have a meaningful connection because of Bigfoot, as well as the claim the "Bigfoot in popular culture" is a notable phenomenon. There are no secondary sources, so if the article contains any analysis it fails WP:NOR. Also without secondary sources, the article fails WP:N no matter what it says. Jay32183 04:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
            • A link to the Internet Movie Database is a secondary source; it is secondary to the movie itself. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to find secondary sources for the vast majority, if not all, of the cultural references--and WP:DP makes it clear that lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion unless serious efforts have been made to find such sources and those efforts failed.
            • (Continued) Against your challenge that "items on the list have a meaningful connection because of Bigfoot," that is really outside the scope of WP:NOR. Note the choice of language - "original research," not "original thought." The WP:NOR article is geared primarily toward factual claims or contentious opinions. It is acceptable to say that a collection of books, movies, etc. on the subject on Bigfoot are meaningfully related. If that constituted unacceptable original research, then participating in an AfD debate would be blasphemy.
            • (Continued) Your challenge to the claim that "the claim the 'Bigfoot in popular culture' is a notable phenomenon" is more reasonable in my opinion. It is a fair argument, but given the volume of books, movies, etc. (considerably notable items) specifically on the subject of Bigfoot, I think it is reasonable to assert notability. The assertion is essentially verifiable insofar as it's premised on all the secondary sources that are listed in the article. WP:SYNTH is unclear on this point, and really isn't meant to be applied to notability discussions.
            • --xDanielxTalk 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
              • First off, WP:NOR refers only to articles, not discussions. Also, actually read WP:NOR do not just look at the title. For the most part, IMDb does not meet WP:RS, and a secondary source repeating a primary source is the same as simply using a primary source. Lack of sources is absolutely a reason for deletion as it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources, as stated in WP:V. Stop trying to wikilawyer. Jay32183 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I am perfectly familiar with WP:NOR, and I don't recall suggesting that it applies to discussions. The Internet Movie Database seems perfectly reliable to me; it is a well-established source of information and I've never heard of concerns regarding the quality of its reports. The IMD does not "repeat" movies, or anything close to that. It summarizes and provides information commentary on the contents of movies; it does not repeat them. Hence it is a secondary source just as surely as the Harvard Law Review is a secondary source. WP:V does not say that articles presently lacking adequate sources should be deleted; it says that claims need to be verifiable. Verifiable, not verified. WP:DP explains the issue clearly - an article may be deleted if its existence is predicated on "[a]rticle information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." By contrast, this is a case where it is extremely easy to find sources backing the large majority of the claims in the article; the article just hasn't had enough time to mature. There is zero evidence suggesting that unsuccessful attempts have been made to find sources for the article. Many of the claims are already adequately sourced, and the rest is just simple grunt work that needs doing. --xDanielxTalk 07:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • IMDb is not a reliable source, any member can contribute. There are also two claims that cannot be backed up by any sources: The notability of "Bigfoot in popular culture" and the claimed relationship of the fictional works. It does not matter that all of the fictional works actually contain mentions or appearances of Bigfoot, no one was claiming that it was untrue. The problem is WP:NOT#DIR which this article fails in a way that cannot be fixed. BY the way, "presently" means "soon", not "now". The fancy word for "now" is "currently". If you think the article can be sourced, go get sources, saying they are out there is not good enough. The closing admin is not a verification service. Jay32183 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • As far as I know, only user reviews are user-generated. WP:NOT#DIR is easily misinterpreted. Wikipedia is not a directory of random facts, but that does not mean that it cannot contain facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, but that does not mean that it cannot contain information. "Presently" can be used synonomously with "currently" as well as "soon." — xDanielxTalk 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • Your argument doesn't mean anything to this article. No one claimed that the article should be deleted because it contains topics or information. The complaints are that the topics are loosely associated and the information is indiscriminate. Unless you get a source to show otherwise, which is very unlikely, you haven't a leg to stand on. Jay32183 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • I've contested that same point too many times already. This debate is going nowhere; let the closing admin do as they will. — xDanielxTalk 05:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • I haven't been presenting the argument to the closing admin, you will be ignored by the closing admin for failing to present a valid argument. I'm trying to get you to understand why you are wrong. Jay32183 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs to be improved but bigfoot as a character in popular culture film, TV, books, etc. is a genuine part of the reality around us. Perhaps retitle to Bigfoot (stock character) or perhaps do like Vampire and retitle to Bigfoot fiction WAS 4.250 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I think this analogy shows why this article fails. Vampire fiction has several book-length treatments about the depiction of vampires in fiction. This article has not been shown to be anything more than a whimsical compilation of bigfoot cameos. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right that the article in question doesn't have the same literature backing that Vampire fiction does, but that doesn't mean that the article in question necessarily "fails." The implication is that it is less well-sourced, not insufficiently sourced. We can't use the best sourcing as a test for sufficient sourcing, otherwise there could only be one permissable content-based article on Wikipedia. --xDanielxTalk 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To the extent there is anything in this article that does not flunk WP:OR, merge with Bigfoot. THF 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no harm in it, it's interesting, and there are references. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this article has been rewritten, it's no longer a terrible list of random stuff. There are one or two lists left in but overall I think it passes muster. It should still remain outside Bigfoot on size grounds, though. Totnesmartin 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a good article to me, and theoretically keeps the main article from being overwhelmed of such references Stephenb (Talk) 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as the article itself says: "...has had a demonstrable impact as a cultural phenomenon". Mathmo Talk 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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.