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]

List of creatures in Primeval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]


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.
More