Deletion of King's Lynn in popular culture

Comment: This nomination raises a host of principal problems, the scope of Wikipedia, who can edit and contribute with what,  etc, the usual slew, and likely the usual people commenting the ususal way.  This article was spun-out from the King's Lynn paretn article 23 October 2008.  No reason was offered, but likely it could be an attempt to purge contested, debated, and what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" ''in popular culture....'' content into a separate article - aiming for an uncontroversial compromise.  Perhaps somebody then will hit the delete button later, which turns out to be now.  This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back.  Personally, I dont like most of this "in popular culture" stuff, but as Jimbo has said, what shall we tell all those people who write about Pokemon etc, go write about nuclear physics instead? The procedure of spinning out the stuff is even endorsed in some guideline, if it prevents the article from achieving GA or FA status - and I think it is a good compromise that everybody should be able to live with. The scope of Wikipedia is so much broader than the elitist Encl. Brittanica etc, see NOTPAPER.  So I would say keep, and ask the nominee not to nominate more of those articles for AfD and instead to start a centralized discussion (good luck!) where this issue belongs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)