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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence regarding Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is a blatant content fork with Bigfoot I redirected to Bigfoot and it was reverted, after discussion third opinion sought and third opinion suggested AfD Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect is not appropriate, because this is not a likely search term. On doing my research for this !vote, I've found that Wikipedia's coverage of Bigfoot is, frankly, a total mess. We have Bigfoot, Evidence regarding Bigfoot, Bigfoot in popular culture, Formal studies of Bigfoot, Bigfoot trap, Patterson-Gimlin film, Yeti and goodness knows what else. We need, at most, Bigfoot, Yeti and possibly Patterson-Gimlin film. Basically, what's called for here is a much smaller number of articles, each containing much more information.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Fewer articles, more dense information, less POV splitting. Right now Bigfoot is the "skeptical of bigfoot" article and Evidence regarding Bigfoot is the "credulous of bigfoot" article. I wasn't even aware of the X in pop culture article (I hate x in pop culture sections, let alone whole articles) or of the Formal studies... and Bigfoot trap articles. Patterson-Gimlin film is notable enough to have its own article. We need to fix this somehow but I'm rather indifferent to how (merge, delete, whatever). Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this page needs to be cleaned up in places I really don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's a relevant expansion of Bigfoot (see Talk:Bigfoot/Archive05#Bigarticle for why) and I believe it has enough interesting and valuable information to merit its existence. The Bigfoot stuff, and the 'paranormal' stuff here is a bit of a mess, granted, but to condense it into one topic would be a huge loss of information. K602 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Bigfoot article, but please keep in the correct scientific framework. None of the "evidence" is scientifically confirmed zoological proof that there is a "Bigfoot" - a claim of "evidence" in the form of a standalone article suggest a confirmation of something that has never been proven. Warrah (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Proper split performed per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Problems with the POV of the sub-article are reasons to fix the sub-article, not to delete it or shoe-horn it back into the main article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The bigfoot is too large to consider even a fraction of this referenced material. Reading both bigfoot and the evidence article reveals bias in each article. This needs to get fixed, but that won't happen via attempting to merge or redirect. I'd say that the other articles mentioned should be summary sections in the main bigfoot article, not in the see also section. Miami33139 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article was split from Bigfoot to conform with WP:SIZE, (discussion here) and returning it there would simply raise the problem again. If there is POV in either article (I haven't read either for two years so I don't know) then correct it. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TexasAndroid and Totnesmartin's comments above. My thoughts exactly. -- œ^™ 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Legitimate spinout article to keep the main article from growing to large. Any POV problems can be dealt with by discussion and proper sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POV-pushing fork of the main article. It doesn't need to be merged back, it needs to be deleted, so arguments about the size merging would require are misplaced. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already said it wasn't a POV fork but still you bleat POV fork. don't you read anyone else's comments, Dreamguy? Are are you just one of those people who think their own opinion is the truth? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For size reasons, as it is an extremely important aspect of the article Bigfoot.--Windowasher 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Size matters. Not a POV fork - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is much interesting material here worth keeping. Merging with Bigfoot would create a too-lengthy article. If there are POV problems here, the proper response is to improve the article, not eliminate it. Plazak (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (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.