Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval

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 Consensus to keep. 1 != 2 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Primeval[edit]

This list of fictional species does not assert notability through the inclusion of real world information, and it is full of mostly primary and trivial information. The topic is covered in the main article (there is one good source that can be placed there), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's reasonably well written and is sourced. — Rudget _speak.work 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All besides two of them are used source primary information. The one good one that I mentioned talks about how they were changed for dramatic effect (it's used like five times, but it's the same thing over and over), and the other one is about background for a computer, which really isn't necessary. TTN (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - after reviewing the comment above and the article's and it's sources, I believe delete would be the best option, but the comments that the supporters make (as me before) do make logic. — Rudget _speak.work 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its sourced and your claim that its not primary information is irrelivant. A source is a source regardless. Nubula (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Primary sources can be used to source content, but they do not assert notability. TTN (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has receved significant coverage as their are three websites, all of which are official, interviews with the creators and press releases that have made it into the national papers. Nubula (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the creatures have real world information, please add it. Currently, only one source is used to assert notability, and that is more of a general thing anyways. If you're trying to say that by having primary information covered in reliable sources is enough, then that assertion is wrong. TTN (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of what I stated is already in the article. This is just you moving your own goalposts. Nubula (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we delete this, we would have to delete nearly every page about nearly every fictional scenario described on Wikipedia. The pages Episode 1 (Primeval)‎ Episode 2 (Primeval) Episode 3 (Primeval) Episode 4 (Primeval) Episode 5 (Primeval) Episode 6 (Primeval) are also at risk here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I had to revert those 6 episode pages to their full text after User:TTN changed them to redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And thus we see the problem with using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING as a rationale for keeping an article - somebody may take you seriously and delete the other stuff. --Phirazo 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just give it a free ride because it cannot pass our policies and guidelines? TTN (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With your evasions any attempt at guidlines is pointless. I mentioned the fact that it has referances from three websites, all of which are official, behind the scenes interviews with the creators and press releases that have made it into the national papers as well as referances to scientific journals and one scientific website and you just dismissed them out of hand. But feel free to move your goalposts yet again. Nubula (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not provide real world information, so they are irrelevant. They need to provide information to actually count towards anything. Feel free to ask on any notability guideline talk page if you don't believe me. TTN (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. This is the goal post moving I mentioned earlier. You demand real world data and then dismiss it when its brough to you. This has nothing to do with guidlines or rules but you looking for any excuss to delete this page. Nubula (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem here is that TTN's using insider shorthand, which you are quite naturally reading to mean something other than intended. By "real world information," he means not information that exists outside of the broadcasts, but that exists outside of the series+producers+broadcaster -- that is to say, that someone, such as a reviewer or critic, has found these specific creatures worth commenting on. A producer's website is a valid source for information about the creatures, but shows promotional materials don't show that OTHER people think it's notable -- because it's in the promoter's interest to insist it is. Does this explanation help? (Note to TTN and others: When it becomes obvious that you and someone are talking past each other, STOP TALKING IN SHORTHAND AND ABBREVATIONS. It'll save a lot of time and frustration all around.) —Quasirandom (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what he means and I'm pointing out that its not true. He demands data from other sources but then refuses to exept any of it when its brought to him for reasons he refuses to state other than he's using his own definations of what counts and moving his goalposts when someone meets that criteria. Nubula (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list is a better option than individual pages for each creature. Wikipedia has individual pages for some of the most obscure characters in barely notable TV shows. If I had my way, I would like one main page for a show, one page of episode summaries, and one page for the characters/monsters/whatever, rather than gobs of pages spread over kingdom come with no editorial oversight. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either vote to keep it or vote to delete it. Because your cluttering up the page with opinons which mean nothing if you don't vote one way or the other. Nubula (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFD, Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. This isn't about voting, it's about discussing. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. Unencyclopaedic. Go write about the real creatures, folks. --Jack Merridew 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be said that there can not easily be totally direct real-world information about any fictional event: e.g. I cannot go onboard the USS Enterprise and ask Picard or Worf what really happened in this or that incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And whats worse, when we do find the data they ask for, which does meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; they dismiss it as trivial or irrelevant (or simply outright lie like TTN). Clearly working on their own personal beliefs rather than what the rules state. And naturaly they never define what they would accept, so that if its found, they promptly move the goalposts and declare no-score. Nubula (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the articles, not the editors (independent of if you're right or wrong with your assertions). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Longstanding consensus holds that information on minor elements from fiction should be covered in list pages like this rather than individual pages for each entry or in the main article. Wikipedia is not paper. You will not find articles on every species of Bat in Brittanica, but you would find them in an 'encyclopedia of bats'... and you find them in Wikipedia. We have room to be an 'encyclopedia of bats' in addition to a 'general reference encyclopedia'. And we have room to be an 'encyclopedia of Primeval' too. Again, this has been consensus for years. IMO recent attempts to change the guidelines to prevent encyclopedic coverage of fiction are being disruptively pushed against consensus. --CBD 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, thank you, CBD, for pointing out that there was/is consensus for these types of lists. TTN, I have no problem with you nominating the individual characters for deletion, one at a time, but you have to give the fan editors someplace to go. If you back them into a corner, they'll bite. If you let them have these lists, little harm is down to Wikipedia. Think about it; thousands to millions of people watch these shows. Some of them might want to know something about a dinosaur they saw on the show. So they come to Wikipedia, and if their search term doesn't get them directly to List of creatures in Primeval then they'll try Primeval, and there will be a link to the List. Now imagine if the list is deleted. All it takes is one newbie to create yet another (probably horribly written and definitely unsourced) individual page on a fictional character, which is the opposite of what you want. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the game is sufficiently notable--which I cannot judge personally. Having these combination articles is a good compromise. I accept Fee Fi Foe Fum 's reasoning--of the ways to handle this perennial problem, this seems the most suitable. let';s all agree on this for everything that itsnt really specially individually notable in a game, merge into combination articles, and stop wasting everyones time on these afds. Working joinly on a project takes compromise. DGG (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's grown well and gotten sourced since I started it. This is as notable as, say, List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. GracieLizzie (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that this list is currently inchoate does not affect its notability or relevance. It needs a chance to grow a little and if it fails to develop, can be AfD'd at a later stage. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (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.