Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant spider


 * 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 for deletion, if you wish to have this article merged, start a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Giant spider

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No secondary sources to establish notability per Notability and Notability (fiction). Having giant spiders in a few games is not enough for an article.  Pagra shtak  17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete or complete rewriting Merge to Cultural depictions of spiders (see below) and if necessary new pages with names like depictions of spiders in movies and depictions of spiders in games (see List of undead-themed video games) They are "Giant Spider"-like creatures in a great number of fictional universes with variable notability but this article is pointless in listing them since we can reach the appropriate token if it's notable enough (e.g. Shelob), or it's in a list, or it's mentioned in another article, or, well, it's not notable. However as Uncle G says, it's possible to conserve the article in a completely different form, similar to the ghost article or Zombies in popular culture article. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look for sources yourself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability. Everything, from Deletion policy and Notability through to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, tells you to do this.  If you had, you'd have seen that this subject, and the more general subject of the "big bug" movie, is discussed in a vast number of sources.  Indeed, one book, ISBN 1877743097, goes so far as to have two tables, spanning pages 288–291, of films that have entomological elements, including several with giant spiders.  Big bug movies are discussed in several places throughout ISBN 089950681X.  ISBN 1404208488 discusses The Deadly Mantis and several other big bug movies.  (I've just cited it in two articles that lacked citations.)  The Insect Fear Film Festival once had an all-spider event.  ISBN 0786400935 talks about the various films in which wire-controlled giant spider special effects have appeared, from Tarantula to Cat Women of the Moon, including who built them.  ISBN 1900486237 mentions how the giant spider from Earth vs. The Spider was tinted blue and used in Journey to the Seventh Planet.  ISBN 0786402709 discusses in detail how the giant spider special effects for Earth vs. The Spider were created by Paul Blaisdell. There's possibly enough source material for a Featured Article on big bug movies and "atomic monster" movies alone, and possibly even giant spiders in movies specifically, here.  And as you can see, we have a couple of missing articles in this area, too.  Deletion isn't required.  More writing is.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great if there's enough source material for an article about big bug movies. This, however, is not an article about big bug movies. It's an article about giant spiders in role-playing games. Sure, the lead has the word "movies" in it, but that's a bit of a red herring—the body of the article is specifically about giant spiders in role-playing games, and the content is little more than a list of three games that have a giant spider. I stand by my nomination, with no prejudice against the creation of an article about giant spiders in movies or fiction in general, if someone wishes to create it.  Pagra shtak  19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the article about giant spiders in movies. It says so.  That the article is a stub that describes its purported subject and contains some disconnected facts is not a reason for deletion.  It's a reason for expansion.  We don't delete stubs; we expand them.   Please familiarize yourself with our Article development process and our Editing policy.  Articles can start out incomplete, sometimes woefully so. When you see an incomplete article, deletion is not the tool that you should reach for.  You should be trying to make it better.  You are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to delete one.  Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point would be made more forcibly if you dropped the condescension. I don't see the point of cluttering up this AFD with this conversation, so I'll continue this on your talk page.  Pagra shtak  22:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I think you have not seen my edit before posting) I agree with the look for sources yourself motto that I've adopted but it's not the main problem I think, if some "giant spider" of some fictional universe deserves an article, let's make an article. But an article on all of them is ridiculous, how to include Shelob ? If we want to make an article on Giant Spiders (cultural representations and so on), it must not have the appearance of a list. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've just shown how to include Shelob, as I have I. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, there is already an article on this topic: Cultural depictions of spiders, it deals with giant spiders among others. I think we should merge Giant spider in this article. It's possible to create articles like depictions of spiders in movies and depictions of spiders in games. -- Cenarium (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm asking myself why the heck I didn't find that when I went and read spider looking for it whilst composing the above rationale. I've been trying to decide whether I'd aim for, as above, an article on giant spiders in movies specifically or an article on big bug and atomic monster movies, which is in fact a more general topic than just spiders alone. (There are also ants. &#9786;)  Given that we have cultural depictions of spiders already addressing the former, albeit that it is not nearly as in-depth as the aforementioned sources indicate it could be, the decision is somewhat simpler.  &#9786;  So the question is whether the best course of action is to merge this article into cultural depictions of spiders or to rename and refactor it into a basis for a big bug/atomic monster movies article.  Frankly, the D&amp;D content isn't useful for a movie article, but the question is whether it is useful for a cultural depictions article, either.  One of the problems with cultural depictions articles is that they tend to grow as laundry lists of individual depictions, as though a list of examples suddenly becomes an article once it passes some magic critical mass.  We probably want some prose talking about RPG depictions in general to tie these two examples to, if we were to add it as a cultural depiction.  And we don't have that here. Of course, a big bug and atomic monster movies article would have to cross-link to cultural depictions of spiders, as a sub-set of the genre, and the latter would have to have a main.  That's a given.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the laundry list flood gates would open, and the article hasn't even started listing spiders in video games, which would create an even bigger list. I'd say create the big bug movie article from scratch, as nothing in this article is about that. Then this article can be either merged/redirected/whatever as needed. If there is substantial content for large spiders specifically in movies, it can be split off from the big bug article down the road.  Pagra shtak  06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * merge to Cultural depictions of spiders. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a merge into Cultural depictions of spiders would be satisfactory. Any objections to me withdrawing this in favor of a merge or merge discussion?  Pagra shtak  23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. Subject is non-notable, but were this only a D&D character, it would redirected to Dungeons & Dragons. What we have here is a three-way redirect, with potential for more (including Cultural depictions of spiders). Convert to a disambiguation page, and let the IPC listificators append links to every giant spider related article in Wikipedia. Since it is possible something notable may eventually be named "Giant Spider", it might be a good idea to then move this page to Giant Spider (disambiguation), retaining the redirect from Giant Spider. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as per Uncle G. Definite potential for an article here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cultural depictions of spiders per User:Cenarium's suggestion. An excellent idea.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 08:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge material. Cultural depictions of spiders seems like a decent enough treatment; I don't think giant spiders need a specific treatment, even when they clearly are worth discussing somewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:55, 20 January 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.