Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aciedactylus mandocaris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge into The World of Kong. --Keitei (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong monsters

To start with, most of those creatures are only mentioned in another encyclopedia (The World of Kong), which brings down questions of copyright. If we offer a free alternative, it is a significant threat to the sales of the book. I also have problems with the silly prose, the complete non-notability, and absolutely no hope of expansion (being that they only exist as entries in a fictional encyclopedia). Interrobamf 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for All- I see no real reason to delete these articles. First of all, your request sounds like a bad faith nomination, and, while I don't mean to attack you in any way, you seem to have many references to vandalizing user talk pages and spreading your own ideas. Second, I don't see "a significant threat to the sales of the book" as a viable argument. We have articles about many books, but no one has listed one for deletion based on the fact that it would detract from the book's sales. As for expansion, there will always be a chance for an article to be expanded (images, infoboxes, etc.) I also don't see any "silly prose" that you suggest. I hope this serves as a good argument against your nomination.

bibliomaniac15 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS: By the way, the use of the paleobox in Vastatosaurus rex was allowed by the creator of the paleobox, Kazvorpal, when I asked him. Here's a link: User talk:Kazvorpal.

    • Do you care to back up the existence my so-called "vandalizing"? Besides the incident about fair use images on a user page, which is againist policy, and a situation you clearly don't understand? You also do understand how irrelevant that is to this debate? And that this is hardly a bad faith nomination compared to nominations that simply state "fancruft"?

      Moving beyond that, articles on books don't delve into exact details about their content nor is that even comparable to this situation. It's quite simple. The only information about those fictional species is in the book, which is presented as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia copies all the detail. People now have little reason to buy the book because they can get all the detail (and under your proposition for expansion, images) for free. Do you not realize the threat?Interrobamf 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't realize any threat. For example, no one has listed the articles about the different types of Middle-Earth elves for deletion, just because it would decrease sales of The Silmarillion. No one has even listed them for merge. Also, I really wouldn't consider this fancruft, since these articles are much like the article List of Star Wars creatures, only with more detail. I still hold with keeping, or at least merging into a list. bibliomaniac15 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with The World of Kong. Articles are small enough to combined. --Masamage 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per WP:FICT. Delete would be my second option. King Kruft. :-) Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Pascal & Masamage. No reason to break out individual entries from this work into separate articles... and WP:AGF... there is nothing wrong with this nom; I don't agree with outright deletion here, but the nominator explained their reasoning for the nomination.--Isotope23 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete all. This grossly violates both WP:FICT and Writing about fiction. It uses pseudo-scientific, realistic, long-winded writing about some utterly non-notable fictional objects. --Ekjon Lok 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Isotope. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all per other editors. Non-notable creatures that don't deserve their own articles. EVula 16:47, 7 October 2006 (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.