Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series


 * 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. Consensus is to delete this content. The proposed replacement content at User:AJFU/sandbox2 would be a different article requiring a separate AfD discussion if it ends up in mainspace again.  Sandstein  08:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:LISTN, no indication that the topic is independently notable from Jurassic Park. While the article is relatively clean, the footnotes are extensive WP:PLOT summaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - the footnotes can just be removed if they're problematic (they weren't there to begin with, but have accumulated over time). Not sure what's wrong with having the list in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fandom-style trivia unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. The creatures that can actually be considered characters can be mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think this has any real potential to be reworked. TTN (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is all trivial and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - more appropriate for a 'fandom Wiki'; fan trivia which doesn't belong on Wikipedia Spiderone  08:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated by others, this is Wikia-cruft that is too trivial for a general purpose encyclopedia. Non-fans will not have much use for information such as the exact dinosaurs that appeared in the Jurassic Park movies.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DELREASON: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is content perfectly suited for a fan site (e.g. Wikia/Fandom), but not for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think the nominator meant to refer to WP:LISTN, not WP:NLIST. The topic meets the requirements of LISTN, even if the sources in the current article do not reflect that. I agree it needs work, but that is not a good reason to delete. I believe the article can be salvaged. I already wrote a different version with plenty of sourcing that I think demonstrates clear notability. The trivial plot info is almost entirely eliminated in this rewritten version, which instead focuses on real-world info, such as production details on how the animals were created for the films. Also, the page currently gets around 500 page views daily, which would seem to suggest that there is an interest in the topic among readers. AJFU  (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. My first thought about User:AJFU/sandbox2 is that it seems not to be a different version of List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series but rather a different article altogether (that would perhaps more accurately be called Depictions of prehistoric creatures in the Jurassic Park series or something along those lines) which overlaps in scope with the article under discussion. I may have to read it more carefully before making a proper assessment, however. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I support keeping the article with a possible move to an alternate title, but it needs to be redone to focus on the depictions from a real-world development perspective instead of being an in-universe fancruft list. And there is certainly a fair amount to be talked about. I would suggest a hybrid between that sandbox article and the current list; that is, the page should focus on the development of specific depictions rather than a general summary. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You should request a move for that draft article to mainspace at Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park so it can be a viable redirect target. I'd gladly modify my opinion to redirect if that were the case.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of them are dinosaurs, though. Some are pterosaurs and one is a mosasaur. AJFU  (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mostly about the dinosaurs, so I don't think splitting hairs about the title would help much. Animals in Jurassic Park could also work, but that sounds unusual.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been disagreement throughout this discussion about the name. I assume that a separate move discussion will be necessary. AJFU  (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep AJFU has proven its possible to make a decent article from this.  D r e a m Focus  02:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is far better suited for a Jurassic Park Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Either [Keep but replace with AJFU's version and histmerge] or [Move AJFU's version to a better title, like Dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park series, and Redirect this title there] - AJFU's version shows there is a well-sourced, notable topic here. But it looks like their version draws from this article (e.g. the table), so we shouldn't lose the history of this article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current title was chosen because not all the cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series are dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the accuracy of the taxonomic nomenclature is deemed more important than being WP:CONCISE, it's better to use a construction with "prehistoric" than one with "cloned". The inclusion of a cloned human being is a bug, not a feature, of the current title. TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Prehistoric" would not be entirely inclusive, as a few of the dinosaurs are fictional hybrid animals created by scientists, combining the DNA of various dinosaurs into one. In other words, they are modern/fictional animals rather than prehistoric ones. I'm not sure if the hybrids actually count as cloned animals, though. At the talk page, I suggested Reptiles in Jurassic Park, which would cover the dinosaurs (prehistoric and modern/fictional), as well as pterosaurs and mosasaurs. AJFU  (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reptiles" would on the other hand be too inclusive, as it would include the snake in the "clever girl" scene in the first Jurassic Park movie. The point is this: what makes this topic notable is not the in-universe mechanism(s) bringing these creatures into being (seriously, the cloned human does not even remotely belong on an article like this), nor anything to do with biological taxonomy (hell, "dinosaurs" would technically include all the birds in the movies as well), but rather that these creatures exist in the fictional universe of the movies but not in the world we live in. We could call the article Depictions of prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series (or just prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series) to cover all bases, but I honestly think it's a bit pedantic to avoid using the term "dinosaurs" because it is not technically accurate; we can clarify the finer points of the taxonomic nomenclature in the WP:LEAD of the article instead of using a clunky but accurate title. "Dinosaurs" is the term anybody looking for this information is most likely to use, by far. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is simply incorrect, and Wikipedia shouldn't spread misinformation just because it's easier to pander to common usage (Pteranodon, Mosasaurus, Dimorphodon, Dimetrodon, etc., weren't dinosaurs). "Extinct/Prehistoric animals" would be the most appropriate term if we can't go with the current title for whatever arbitrary reason. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current title is complete and utter garbage, because it defines the scope in a way which fails to capture why this topic is noteworthy. The in-universe explanation behind their existence is not what makes them noteworthy. The inclusion of the cloned human being should be a dead giveaway in this regard. This is not some minor issue (or "arbitrary", as you put it), this is a major problem with the scope. Do the sources treat the in-universe cloning as the defining characteristic of this topic, or is it the fact that these creatures do not exist in the world we currently inhabit (either because they are extinct or because they are fictional) but do in the world of the movies? Should the article not include those creatures who are (in-universe) descendants of the cloned animals but are themselves the products of sexual reproduction (if a sequel is set a couple of generations down the line when all the cloned animals have died and only their offspring and further descendants remain, do we not include the non-cloned animals in our article whatsoever)? We have to strike some kind of balance between accurately describing the scope of the article, actually having a good scope (which is the point where I refuse to compromise), and not getting a terribly unwieldy title (such as Non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mosasaurs, other prehistoric creatures, and fictional transgenic hybrids thereof in the Jurassic Park series). Your suggested title, for instance, wouldn't include the fictional species such as the Indominus rex – is this intentional? With regards to the use of "dinosaurs" in the title: to my eye, an inaccurate title which requires a clarifying note/correction in the WP:LEAD (such as "Besides dinosaurs, the series has also depicted pterosaurs and mosasaurs [...]" or 's "The series has also featured Mosasaurus and members of the pterosaur group, both commonly misidentified by the public as dinosaurs.") is the lesser of two evils when compared to messing up the entire scope of the article (this bears repeating: the in-universe cloning is not this article's raison d'être, the reason this article exists is that these creatures exist in the films but not in real life) in order to fit it to a different title. The scope is more important than the title – fit the title to the scope (if need be), not the other way around. With the current scope, this article should be deleted; this scope does not make for a valid Wikipedia article. Like I said before: User:AJFU/sandbox2 is not a different version of List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series but rather a different article altogether, though the scopes overlap. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Err, your excessively long rant fails to address the proposed more fitting alternate titles "List of extinct/prehistoric animals in the Jurassic Park series" which would solve any such problems. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your suggested title, for instance, wouldn't include the fictional species such as the Indominus rex – is this intentional? TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would still be closer to the mark than "dinosaurs" or "reptiles", since the components of those hybrids were other animals anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with FunkMonk here. "Indominus rex", "Indoraptor", and these other hybrids are a relatively new invention (5 years old as of writing), while non-dinosaur prehistoric animals have a considerable presence going back to the original trilogy. There is no free lunch here: no title can capture both non-dinosaurs and hybrid dinosaurs without being unwieldy, and I would rather sacrifice Colin Trevorrow's inventions. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but do we then sacrifice the accuracy of the title or do we not include the fictional ones in the article? And how unwieldy is Prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series really, comparatively? Obviously "creatures" could be replaced with "animals" or "species" or something. TompaDompa (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your suggestion, actually. I thought that you and/or others would have objected to something of the sort. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article fails WP:LISTN and doesn't seem to have any direct detailed coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Not opposed to a merge if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been seeing WP:NOTPLOT as the latest thing thrown around lately by the same users, after the litany of invalid "The article fails to establish notability" nominations fell through the mud. That's a not a criteria for deletion or an indication of notability. If something is poorly written, you rewrite it (per WP:DEL-CONTENT). AfD is not a clean-up forum, nor is deletion the go-to solution for when you have a problem with an article.  Dark knight  2149  00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Replace with User:AJFU/sandbox2 - It recontextualises the valuable parts of the list article with extensive reliable sources and is already shaping up to be a potential WP:FA candidate. Going through this draft, there is zero justification for a straight deletion per WP:GNG, WP:ATD, and WP:DELREASON.  Dark knight  2149  00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the use of the draft, but it is so different in scope that a title like "depictions of prehistoric animals in the Jurassic Park series" is more appropriate, and such an article should be able to be created with no prejudice even if the decision for this article is delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft includes some things from the current article, mainly the lead section and a table of appearances. Both of these were modified in my version, but the current article should probably still be retained for attribution. AJFU  (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with User:AJFU's version as necessary for a reliably sourced article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Replace with AJFU's draft and rename. It gets a bit in the weeds but at least would deserve its own discussion. There is agreement that the list shouldn't stay as is so while I'd normally say delete and AJFU's draft can enter mainspace whenever ready, AJFU's draft appears to have merged content (at least the lede) from the existing article, so the current list's history would need to be kept for attribution purposes. Please do attribute the source of your text if copying from other sources/Wikipedia articles in the future. I like Dinosaurs and cloned reptiles in the Jurassic Park series but that'll be its own discussion too. (not watching, please )  czar  00:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. We have to list each species somewhere on this website including the hybrids that appear in the tie-in video game. Plus,, , and are right about their claims. We can even go with the sandbox idea if the outcome is delete, but we'll still have to put the hybrid dinosaurs from the films and the video games in it's own subsection of that page. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it has to be in a list like this. As I proposed, an article similar to AJFU's sandbox, but with treatments of individual animals, can meet this goal while not being fancruft. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your proposal? The sandbox already includes a list of individual animals, so it's unclear to me what would be done differently. AJFU  (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, did you change the list recently? I must not have seen it. This looks fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the same version that was originally proposed. AJFU  (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The hybrids from the films are already listed. I'm not sure which video game(s) you're referring to, but the recent games themselves don't seem that notable, so I can't imagine it's any different for the dinosaurs that appear in them. In other words: without reliable sources, there wouldn't be much to write about these animals. AJFU  (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned somewhere that the Stegoceratops was planned to appear, but was scrapped. It did appear in the toyline and the tie-in video games where the players can also obtain prehistoric sea creatures and some Tertiary creatures. Some of the Tertiary creatures also have hybrids as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:MERCY, and (often) WP:PERNOM are not good reasons to keep something.  Dark knight  2149  19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As for attribution, there are several ways to do this per WP:ATTREQ. This is my personal opinion, but I don't think you need a history merge (as long as this isn't deleted outright). The articles are significantly different enough, that stating material was copied from here is sufficient. I have added a copied template to the talk page of your sandbox, and that should cover you. I guessed at some of the specific revision ids based on timestanps in the histories, so feel free to correct them, if necessary. -2pou (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- this looks like it got lost on the way to Wikia. Definitely suited for a fan wiki, but not here. Reyk YO! 13:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, a bunch of cruft that fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: If there is consensus to use the draft version, I am unsure exactly how to proceed. One suggestion was to do a histmerge with the current list, and other suggestions were to move the draft to mainspace and then redirect the current list there. Also, there is the issue of the title, which I assume would need to be determined through a move discussion. I am unsure which would come first, the move discussion or the implementation of the draft. AJFU  (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend just moving it to main space at whatever title you feel is appropriate right now. If you are truly uncertain, just open a WP:RM right away seeking input/recommendations on the best name.  The RM forum tends to have different participants than the AfD forum, and you can always ping the participants here if you'd like them to participate.  It shouldn't hold up this deletion discussion, though.
 * Redirect to wherever the sandbox ends up, and if it gets moved to a more refined title, EmausBot will take care of it at that point. -2pou (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2020 (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.