Deletion of Bigfoot in popular culture

Comment: as an unsourced violation of #INFO and #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: This is just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails #DIR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I have removed the more loosely related trivia references from the article in question. Needing cleanup is not a #Reasons_for_deletion|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Luke, what sources are being synthesized? Synthesis in the context of  means combining sourced material with original analysis (lots of good explanation and discussion Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Just_to_circle_around_Synthesis_section_again|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)