Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)
Original research, crap, etc. If there are secondary sources, they should be used to establish notability first and foremost. Given that the creature itself is a derivative fictional element which wields no cultural influence, I doubt any case for establishing notability could be made now. Specifically, cruft and viral advertisements are not notable by virtue of fan interest alone (we defer to ). Maybe in a few years, after more movies, a developed media franchise, or significant published commentary there will be a solid basis for an article on the subject. ˉˉ
— User:Anetode, 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)