Deletion of Monster Pig

Comment: Follows all policies |reliable sources, |verifiability, |no original research and is notable (mentions in Australia, potential world hunting record if verified as wild
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: WP:CITE|Well cited with |reliable sources, but somehow, an inexperienced kid shooting a pig doesn't seem to be... too encyclopedic or noteworthy one year from now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: WP:NOT#PAPER and it is useful to have some articles documenting hoaxes/one-day-wonders/media frenzies (propagating as far as Australia &mdash; see above) that may be used in articles about those topics. I doubt if space would be used in those articles to document this incident as fully as this article likely will. Also, unlike Bigfoot, it is unlikely to endure as an object of belief and hence will not require continued removal of  violations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Widely referenced to a range of notable reliable sources. I don't understand the "unencyclopedic" argument.  is not an argument for delete without a specific rationale, which hasn't been provided
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)