Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodo parasite

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 Redirect — references do not support notability. --Haemo 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodo parasite

Dodo parasite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Most of it is fan fiction and in error, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page and this relativly unknown fictional creature, for which their is harldy any true data, is not noteworthy hence it's surly better to delete this page and leave its sub-section on Primeval creatures page. Most of the data is just stolen from the Primeval creatures page and the episode guide page so its just a copy of already existing pages. Also no-one had any problem with where it was for months. The article waffles in order to make itself look longer and it also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Nubula 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• n.b. I have corrected this nominations formatting. Natalie 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, the Primeval creatures page does not have precident; see here for an example of a page deleted as a result of a newer page coming in. While it makes no logical sence to have two articles on the same subject, we only have that because any attempt to fix the problem is reverted by you as vandalism. The article does require cleanup and referencing, but I feel the article is salvigable and we should make an effort to do that.--OZOO (What?) 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZOO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would. If the vote goes in favour of keeping this page then that's what we'll do. And a false dilemma falacy is assuming that I have no alternative but to choose from the options you give me. That seems to be where we're failing to communicate. You expect me to choose between keeping two articles, illogical as you admit, or moving the data to one complete page. I on the other hand don't think the original page should be split as this creature is not noteworthy enough to warrent its own page. Nubula 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as notable, and has verifiable and reliable sources. I added the reflist. Bearian 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not realy that noteworthy. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge/redirect to List of creatures in Primeval. Without significant real-world information, there is no need to get this detailed about this particular creature. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 16 September 2007 (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.