Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture

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. Withdrawn by author/SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness Monster in popular culture

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

Almost entirely unreferenced listcruft, except for the first appearance in a film, which can be mentioned in the original article. Your typical example of "split it and forget it" that is not allowed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs trimming to take out the trivial references to the LNM, and sourcing, but the LNM is central to several films, TV shows, etc. and there's no shortage of coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely cleanup related to unsourced entries per WP:TRIVIA (read: we want secondary sources to note the mention of Lock Ness in other works), but this is clearly enough sources already to justify the list. AFD is not cleanup. --Masem (t) 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that AFD is not cleanup. There is nothing to "clean up" in this article, as there are practically no reliable sources. Even if one were to drastically improve the sourcing, there is still no argument for a standalone article over a section in the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine dumping ground for when it becomes necessary to clear out the main Loch Ness Monster article. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:IPCA, no article should be a "dumping ground". If a list article becomes full of unsourced cruft, it should be deleted, and any cruft information added to the main article deleted as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this monster is known internationally and even the higher profile 'cameos' in film, media etc are good enough to support this as a valid article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, there are 100s of books that discuss/contain stories about nessie, from children's picture books to adult non-fiction, some notable, some not, as for "listcruft", any trivial/non-notable entries can be removed. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be better to rename this "Loch Ness Monster in creative works"? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: that would narrow it's scope and make it inconsistent with hundreds of other ...in popular culture articles. The title is fine, the issue is the need for someone to write inclusion criteria. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okey dokey:))Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles and book chapters have been written on this topic; it is hardly non-notable. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2018 (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.