Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of creatures in Primeval}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:List of creatures in Primeval}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|List of creatures in Primeval}})

Unnotable list of fictional creatures from the Primeval series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and series already has a List of Primeval characters for discussions specific creators relavant to the series. Bulk of article "sources" are from the series and other primarily sources, with other actual reliable sources being used for WP:OR to "prove" personal views about the creators while not actually referencing the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to be sources from Metro, Digital Spy and Radio Times amongst others, therefore establishing notability. WossOccurring (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:Did you actually look at those sources? The Digital Spy article is about Flemyng and Rouass joining the cast, and is not significant coverage of neither the "Dracorex" section where it is used nor the topic as a whole. The Radio Times article is an interview with the creators and again, not significant coverage of neither the "Pristichampsus" nor the topic as a whole. The Metro article never even MENTIONS the series at all, it is purely about sabre-tooth cats. Again, what notability has been established for this topic? None at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs serious work, particularly distinguishing the background about the RL creatures from their role in the series. I'm glad we've gotten away from the absurdity of trying to make individual articles on each individual creature, as we might have done 2 years ago. I don't see any real overlap with List of Primeval characters. I gather the nom correctly thinks the characters list an appropriate article--and then so is this. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:No, this is not. There is a major difference (and please don't presume to guess what I think about the character list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete: poorly sourced and full of OR. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:Those are editorial issues and are not excuses to delete articles. WossOccurring (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep "Characters" pages certainly do not cover the same ground. And is it kosher to do an AFD without any discussion or even mention on the talk page? And while I have the article on my "Watch" list, I didn't notice this change till today, as adding the AFD tag was described, very disingenuously I think, as "add missing tag", so I didn't bother to even look at the page when I saw the notification. Was that deliberate? And doing it at Christmas also seems designed to get under the radar of interested parties. And -- the link to "this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" is broken/red, by design, accident or carelessness, I don't know. Took me 10 minutes to find this page. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::Could you express any more good faith there?. Twinkle messed up in adding the tag, so I fixed it, and didn't realize the template didn't pick up the page name the way it made it sound like it would. Doing it on Christmas is irrelevant. Wikipedia is active enough, the AfD is 7 days long, and not everyone celebrates. Why don't you reread WP:AGF and then rethink your "keep" argument, which doesn't even give a keep reason beyond you seem to mistakenly think it was done in a bad manner and like it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::: It still looks very suspicious. Everything seemed to have been designed to let it slip by without anyone noticing and made it difficult to object. Just putting "add missing tag" for an AFD? Give me a break. I had to troll back and forward through the history to find when the AFD was made before I could even find this page, linked to the date. That removed any initial assumption of good will. What do you mean by "series already has a List of Primeval characters"? Are you suggesting all the beasts should be put there? Doesn't seem appropriate. And my other reasons for "Keep" have been expressed well enough by others, above and in the previous AFD, so I will just add my vote. Barsoomian (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Extend AfD period I am a disinterested party to the contents of the article, but I find the discussion about timing and flagging to be of interest. How the AfD was done, and its timing, are not directly relevant to the suitability of the end-product article. However, adding another 7 days to this discussion should be acceptable to both sides, and put an end to the potential for incivility.DaveCW (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::::That is really not a useful suggestion. He obviously found the AfD fairly quickly, and it was easily findable by looking on the AfD log. At most, extending it 4 days because that's how long it took anyone to notice the link was broken is all that would be needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::::: Not "easily". It took 10 minutes screwing around, no thanks to you. Not everyone is as familiar as you with the "AFD log" and how it works. And who knows how many people gave up on the dead link you made supposedly to this page.Barsoomian (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. No more or less worthy of inclusion than List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. More "encyclopedic" perhaps since most of these creatures are closely based on known real animals, whose entries are cross-referenced when possible. Since many creatures appear in more than one episode, a reference amalgamating these appearances and background on the real creatures that they are based on is a useful reference; and inevitably pages for individual creatures will keep being recreated if the list page is deleted. Barsoomian (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::Struck as this editor has already stated keep before. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::: You complained I didn't explain my reasoning before, so I expanded on it. I'm sure they can count unique votes without your help. Barsoomian (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no need to delete useful content. Watch out for WP:OR tho.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Helps keep the kiddies off the scientific articles describing the animals this series is based upon. ;) More seriously, it looks like there are references, so someone has tried to keep the article in halfway decent shape. No reason to delete something someone found useful enough to add this many citations to. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep This is the proper way to handle such lists, and notability has not somehow evaporated in the two years since the last "keep". It has not been abandoned since then, receiving some care and attention. What is prudent is to encourage more, not delete. Further, "characters" and "creatures" are not the same, and the implied merging of these listed creatures into the list of Primeval characters would A) woefully overburden List of Primeval characters, and B) most certainly invite the later deletion of the creatures from the character list because they are not characters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep A useful list for those seeking information on a notable subject. Dream Focus 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

: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.