Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster and 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 no consensus for deletion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster and popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unacceptable trivia collection per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. Public perception is well covered in the main article; this is just a bunch of one-off jokes. Eyrian 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only argument for keeping this is as a way of keeping this kind of crap from the main article. Delete. --John 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It has already been established that BTTH is not a valid contribution to an Afd. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he is claiming that with that out of the way, there is no reason to keep this. --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --John 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. The list is completely unsourced (J.K. Rowling does not count, as it's a primary source) and trivial. María ( críticame ) 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Works of fiction are self referencing, it is only inperpritations of fiction that require fill sourcing (eg, saying "X is a character in Y" requires no additional sources than the media in question, it is only things like "most fans believe", or "Critics say" that need full sourcing"). perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Their importance is not self referencing. --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability and importance are separate issues. Popular culture would still exist largely in its present form even if the LNM was not part of it, therefore it is not particularly important. However, the sheer number of appearances of this single theme in popular culture make it notable. Recurring themes are often notable, especially when, as in this case, they cover so many different areas of popular culture, and cross international boundaries. perfectblue 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid WP:RS disagrees. María ( críticame ) 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that WP:RS (which is only a guideline) would only apply here in the case of a secondary source analyzing a primary source or a topic, not in the case of a primary source being cited as proof of its own existence. A Primary source is always WP:V for its own existence regardless o whether it is WP:RS to discuss the topic, there are no exceptions. After all, something must exist in order to be cited, therefore citation of a source that exists is always validation of the sources existence. Are you disputing that these primary sources exist? - perfectblue 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not, and you missed my point entirely. Secondary sources are required in order to prove that these references are necessary towards the subject matter's impact on popular culture, hence the entire purpose of an IPC article: to show how important these subjects are to the world around us.  However, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." - WP:PSTS (policy)  That the references have occurred is not being contested; rather, their importance is.  Therefore, secondary sources are required.  Without it, their notability is called into question.  Without that, the article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted.  María ( críticame ) 02:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Mergethe LNM has proven to be a notable and recurring trend in popular culture and as such is a valid topic that is notable beyond the fact/fiction of alleged LNM sightings in real life. - perfectblue 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable, eh? Want to provide some independent sources discussing its importance in popular culture? --Eyrian 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The sheer number of works based on the LNM or containing it as a theme is evidence enough of its notability.. For example, references in the Simpsons and the film Lockness, both prove that the LNM has become a cultural phenomona in the US (I'm pretty sure that it turned up in an episode of South Park, too). In the UK there are even entire series devoted to the LNM, such as the family ness. You don't find something non-notable showing up nearly so often in popular culture. - perfectblue 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments such Eyrian's are disappointing to read, you don't need a source to explicitly say it is notable for it be notable! The act of being noted makes it notable, by definition. Mathmo Talk 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the merge proposal The main article currently has "The Loch Ness Monster is a recurrent figure in modern literature, television, movies and games." I would very strongly resist any major increase of the coverage of trivial cultural references on the main article. --John 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the notability is shown by the number of references to the subject, and there is presently no rule against the use of primary sources of this sort to show the widespread use of subject as a theme.DGG' (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete like Bigfoot or The Bermuda Triangle, there is no there there but for pop culture; all this stuff that matters should be in the main article, if it doesn't matter then it ought be deleted. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is not all in works of fiction the coverage of these subjects, there is extensive academic coverage of this and many claimed "sightings" of the loch ness monster. Mathmo Talk 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's unfit for merging into the main Loch Ness article, but there's no denying the pervasity of the monster in popular culture, nor its influence on the tourist attractions industry world over. One thing that I didn't catch from the article, but after the Loch Ness monster became a popular legend, everyone else wanted a mascot.  If you've been in upstate N.Y., you'll hear of "Champ", who supposedly "haunts" Lake Champlain.  The monster is a beloved (some would say overrated) figure, generally in comedies, and one of those things that makes for a good yarn.  Anyone remember the anti-littering campaign in Britain that went, "Be like Nessie, don't be messy"?  The article needs to be maintained, but it's hardly unmaintainable.  Well done. Mandsford 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - this is a good way of organizing the info. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original synthesis of primary sources. Not a single secondary source provides guidance for this article, which speaks poorly of it in terms of both WP:N and WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at 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)
 * Delete This is a list of trivial mentions of the loch ness monster - The monster made very very small appearances in these items Corpx 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for.... well too many reasons! Mathmo Talk 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding slightly more detail: keep per (picking out my favourite vote comments): perfectblue, DGG, AndyJones, and Mandsford. Mathmo Talk 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, please don't take offense were but is that the most broadest and vague vote ever? Heh, mine was not much better. So on that note... Mathmo Talk
 * 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.