Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Island (2002 film)


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Notability appears marginal, opinion of good-faith editors is genuinely divided, delete voters have a fair point that it could really do with substantially better sourcing. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Direct-to-video animated film with no famous voice performers; IMDb has no reviews of it. Maybe there are sources that would help it establish notability under WP:MOVIE, but I am not aware of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No assertion of notability through sources - delete. Master&amp;Expert (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:RS and WP:NF. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand A whole whack of the series "The Land Before Time" are also direct-to-DVD. John Loy, the writer of this movie is also involved in The Land Before Time series, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Back to the Future (the animated series).  BMW  (drive)  13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would it be mean of me to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF? -- JediLofty UserTalk 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article makes no attempts to establish importance or significance nor can I find anything in reliable 3rd party sources that show it is important or significant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep nor to delete articles and this one is no exception. At the most it would be a redirect but, where? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this film has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: An A1/A3 speedy delete.  A fact is not an article.  There has to be more than "Spot is a dog" for something to qualify even as a substub.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Break after re-write I have done some research for the movie/article and have made some significant improvements. It's still stub-class, but I feel it is a far better beginning to an encyclopedic article...significant enough that I hope the AfD will be withdrawn. Agreeably, this needs more work, but in the interest of saving the article, it's the best I could do in such a short time. BMW (drive)  22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is only one source that shows it's notability though. If more sources can't be found in the remainder of this AFD, then I won't withdraw.Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with and then redirect to List of DIC Entertainment productions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Struck earlier vote. Forget a redirect. THIS source proved enough notabuility for me.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that needs at least one more review and it'll be fine. Schuym1 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that The New York Times took an interest... and the editorial review at AmericaPoems.com.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: I think it's fine now. Schuym1 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not fine. The NYT link does not show it's notability because the movie portion is like IMDB.com and the American Poems site has been appearing as advertisements. Even if I thought it was notable during this AFD, I wouldn't withdraw it because of the delete votes and I know that all admins will not accept it. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a far better, more encyclopedic article than the stub that originally existed, and my life on Wikipedia generally revolves around creating stubs :). Notability is established in article (only attempt to do a classic/famous novel in this format, notability of director, author, success in Italy).  Let's not WP:DEMOLISH.  Just because a website is "like" IMDB, doesn't mean it "is" IMDB, and thus is a valid source...it proves that more than one site details the film itself.  This is a kids animated movie, of course there won't be big stars, so the general parameters of WP:MOVIE can never be met, but those are guidelines anyway.  BMW  (drive)  12:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Per the second paragrpah of WP:RS, the New York Times is acceptable. And I see no problem with the editorial review at American poems, as even the NYT advertises itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever I click on the American Poem link it shows up as a pop-up that can't be closed, but it doesn't do that for anyone else. Schuym1 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just for the record, my opinion to delete has not changed, either. The only coverage by a reliable source, the NYT, is clearly trivial coverage that in no way establishes notability. That link is simply a placeholder (that exists for virtually all videos) for readers to rate the video (which, by the way, not a single NYT reader has done). Even the "Cast & Credits" section is empty. — Satori Son 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My thought exactly. The American Poems link doesn't show notability also because the editorial review is just a plot summary (It worked for me now). Schuym1 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's a plot summary that does NOT come from the box, the insert, or anywhere else. It was their original research into the film - in other words, they watched it and made notes.  BMW  (drive)  10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but AmericanPoems.com is not even close to being a reliable source. — Satori Son 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable enough. If there's OR in the article, strip it out. It can't all be OR. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It this going to end anytime soon? Schuym1 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It can end now...I just added my input. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the information is verifiable, and it satisfies criterion #2 of "Other evidence of notability" section from WP:NF: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Esn (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability issues seem to have been addressed. Banj e  b oi   18:37, 29
 * Thre is only one source so no it hasn't. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (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.