Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foetodon

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 of the debate was no consensus, but leaning toward a possible merge. Be WP:BOLD and WP:DIY. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:32, Dec. 25, 2005

[edit] Foetodon, Ligocristus, Vastatosaurus Rex

Not notable fictional dinosaurs from King Kong (2005 film). --Apostrophe 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge into an article on Skull Island inhabitants. thatcrazycommie
  • Delete per nom. The names aren't even used in the movie. Kusma (討論) 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete' Borisblue 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's mentioned to be fictional and there are already other fictional creatures on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Keep, unless we're going to delete articles such as Bilbo Baggins or Desperate Dan along with any other fictional character/person/animal.Jcuk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability, anyone? Bilbo Baggins is a vital character in Lord of the Rings. Those are short articles about random Dinosaurs in King Kong. --Apostrophe 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.
  • Keep or merge, articles just need to be fleshed out with perhaps a capture from the film and a source link. Seinfreak37 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just how are they to be "fleshed out"? They're fictional dinosaurs appearing a single movie! All they serve is to be things for the characters to run away from and for Kong to kill. --Apostrophe 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN dinosaur species featured in a single film. Not much more than a device to advance the plot/action. --Madchester 07:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.The V.Rex and others are interesting aspects of a movie that creates creatures distinct from anything else. They are featured and described in a field guide to skull island, and are more than simple plot-devices. These creatures were created by artists who wanted to schulpt something new and interesting, something with real backgrounds and interesting qualities that would capture the imagination of true fans, and so far, Wikipedia has beent he pnly place to get easy access to any of this information. If deleted, many will truly miss out for the disinterest of a few. Indeed, I agree that the articles should be enhanced with more substantial background information and images.
    • User has only a few edits, all on those articles. --Apostrophe 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When was it that Wikipedia became a sci-fi fansite? I didn't get that memo. -R. fiend 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep, of interest to fans of the movie and of fiction dinosaurs in general. Kappa 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It being interesting to a specific group of people doesn't mean we should keep it. I'm sure some people are interested in not-notable bands and hoax articles; however, I'm not seeing you voting keep on those articles out of possible interest to some people. --Apostrophe 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The groups of people interested in this topic are large and identifiable. If you are destroying information that I and a large number of others would find valuable, how can you at the same time promise me the sum of human knowledge? Kappa 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "Large and identifiable"? --Apostrophe 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • People who saw the movie + people interested in dinosaurs = large and identifiable. Kappa 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • But are they interested in those Dinosaurs? --Apostrophe 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this stub with no expandability. Even merging all these into a list, as is normal for minor character articles, doesn't seem reasonable considering the overwhelming triviality.—jiy (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — Deletions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ¿What if someone feels that some of the articles are garbage while others are gold? I have seen VfDs of multiple articles which have exactly that problem. Multiple articles should not be listed together. — Ŭalabio‽ 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge — Despite my previous comment, the solution is merge for all, but not the same article. Foetodon should go into the section Crocodilians in fiction in Crocodilians. Ligocristus should go into the section Ceratopsians in Fiction in the article Ceratopsians. Vastatosaurus Rex should go into the section Tyrannosourids in Fiction in the article Tyrannosaurids. — Ŭalabio‽ 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose Walabio's suggested merge targets. These articles do not have sections on dinosaurs in fiction yet, and should be kept as clean real paleobiology articles. If the articles absolutely have to be merged instead of deletd outright, make a new article out of them and King Kong (2005 movie)#Bestiary. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Merge or make a new article, Yeah, and I doubt you could find out too much info about V-Rexes or these other creatures unless you take from other articles about dinosaurs or state the obvious from the film so either just delete this article or make up a new one about "creatures from king kong". Perhaps you could simply include this stuff on the besitary on the movie article page. --Predator 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It can't expand. --SpacemanAfrica 02:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although Kusma says the names are not used in the movie, they are definitely found on the official website (which could mean that when the DVD is released a few extra scenes might even name a couple of the animals). Besides..why do these fictional animals have to have a name? The flying steeds of the Nazgul never had any official names (although the got the name "Fell Beasts" for the movie) and they have a page.
  • Delete, it can't be expanded. Maybe put all the information on the King Kong (2005 film) article? The names weren't even used in the film.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Zzzzz 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all those characters barely, if any had a role in the movie. I see no need for a article. --Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge I found myself at the articles when I wanted to learn the differences between the fictional dinosaurs and their real counterparts. I'd at least like for all of the information to be kept - whether or not is merged makes little difference to me so long as I can find it easily. MagicBez 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I remember skimming this information recently in a book, I think it is from the new book, The World of Kong : A Natural History of Skull Island by Weta Workshop which gives more movie details about the animals of Skull Island. Should be kept because this would be good information for anyone interested in the subject. --Evmore 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 10:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this childish, crufty garbage. If kept, at least merge these with the film. u p p l a n d 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete Send it to some form of bestiary article for King Kong or delete it outright, this is merely a faux dinosaur that serves solely as a plot device. Comradeash 13:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Porrly written, but keep if rewritten ComputerJoe 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep and or merge' under a comprehensive article for additional information for the movie. 67.188.156.38 06:53, 23 December 2005 (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.