Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological issues in Jurassic Park (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Biological issues in Jurassic Park
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is 100% WP:OR or WP:SYN: "This happened in the film, and this is the actual fact". That's the very definition of WP:SYN. It appears this has been pointed out several times over the last 5 years, promises were made to fix it at the first AFD, and nothing was done, except even more synthesis was added. After all this time to correct it, and a previous AFD on the same grounds, it should be judged on what is there now.Barsoomian (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, can't I argue that dinosaurs are WP:OR? TV | talk 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could make an argument that sourced responses of experts to the scientific liberties taken might have a place in the articles for the book and movie, as appropriate.  But this is basically something akin to Criticisms of the science of Jurassic Park, only with more novel synthesis.  And I don't think we'd do that as a standalone article even without the other problems, on account of due weight issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to main article Jurassic Park (film) as parts of the article are worth saving. Having a separate article is overkill though. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which parts? I checked several references in the article, none actually mentioned "Jurassic Park". They supported the facts, but the conclusions drawn about "issues in Jurassic Park" were all by the editors, i.e., WP:SYN. Barsoomian (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - After going through the article in more detail, it looks any parts I thought worth saving are actually just original research. I have changed to vote to delete. Holyfield1998 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - isn't this basically just a slightly more WP:SYNTH version of this story. Yeah, there's probably something there that could be merged into Jurassic Park ("Criticisms of scientific assertions" or something) but as a standalone article it's pretty weak. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (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.