Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval (4th 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.  Sandstein  18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

List of creatures in Primeval
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is mostly unsourced and an obvious example of Fancruft. It has been nominated for deletion three times before and I cannot understand why it still remains (seems to be fans of the series wishing to keep it here). There are no reliable, third-party sources that establish this as a notable subject and the content is a much better fit for fan websites such as the Primeval wiki. Adequately sourcing the content in this article with reliable sources is going to be impossible and the content that would otherwise be good (comparisons between the creatures in the programme and the real-world animals they were based on) is more or less entirely original research. In past AfD:s those wishing to keep it have stated that the content can't be merged back into the article for Primeval since it's too large, but I don't see the need for listing every single animal in the series in the first place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep according to what you just mentioned: is lacking in this article; yes I believed you entirely but this article is far² from even call not notable, I believed this don't look like a (Wikipedia list article) bcuz it is different from the title as per 'list of creatures in primeval'. Change the article title would be better. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 15:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Retitling the article would not solve the significant problem of this clearly being fancruft, the lack of notability, the lack (and impossibility) of adequate sourcing and the rampant original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - It’s astonishing that this still exists. It does not in any way establish notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. There is nothing that can be called significant covering the topic as a whole. It lacks discussion from a real world perspective. It’s just a massive WP:NOTPLOT failure. TTN (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is literally no reason to keep this around. Nothing notable can be said about the depictions of animals in this series. It is a list, with a lot of unnecessary fancruft in between. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am astonished as well at the fact that this was kept at the previous three AfDs. Pure fancruft and listcruft. Non-notable topic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Every previous nomination has resulted in Keep so this renomination seems to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, especially as it seems to be mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Too large" is not a reason to delete – it's a reason to WP:SPLIT, which is what has been done here.  See also WP:NOTPAPER.  Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you got WP:IDONTLIKEIT from this; I pointed out several flaws with the article that violate Wikipedia policies; it being overly detailed fancruft, it severely lacking reliable sources (and the impossibility of adding such sources in this case), and the lack of notability. The only flaw you defend here, its size, is something I did not even bring up as one of its flaws. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete If a list of creatures of Jurassic Park, one of the biggest box office franchises of all time, was found not to be notable, then a list about a much less popular TV series surely isn't. Due to Primeval's "monster of the week" format theres significant overlap with List of Primeval episodes. Unlike for Jurassic Park, theres not really any significant commentary in news articles from the time on how accurate the depictions are, which means that there is little to work with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jurassic Park is a small number of movies. Primeval consisted of two TV series and your rationale is really WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, Primeval is significantly less known than Jurassic Park. There is significantly more commentary and sources available for creating a "list of creatures" for Jurassic Park than there is for Primeval, and yet that was deemed non-notable, a perfectly acceptable line of reasoning. It is also worth pointing out that one of your own rationales for wanting to keep the list was WP:OTHERSTUFF (!); "This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is also worth pointing out that one of your own rationales for wanting to keep the list was WP:OTHERSTUFF - No, that's incorrect. My point was is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV. You forgot to quote that part of the sentence. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an important point of contention but "This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV" is a two-part argument (there is an "and" in the middle); "this is no different to..." is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I've already challenged the "is entirely appropriate..." part below. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * is a two-part argument - The irony here is that you are accepting that it is one argument. That it has two parts is irrelevant. If you are going to rebut an argument, rebut the whole argument. Don't ignore the part that you can't.
 * I've already challenged the "is entirely appropriate..." part below - Yes you have but "List of characters" articles are most definitely supported. That's why we have thousands of them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, I did rebut the whole argument but in two separate places. Let's not get caught in this non-issue and stick to the matter at hand. "List of characters" articles might be supported yes (if they are notable in the first place, with coverage in reliable sources), but this is not a list of characters and as such is not supported by the MOS. You can challenge me on this below, the discussion is becoming a bit all over the place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is really no difference between a "list of characters" and a "List of creatures" article so yes, this is covered by the MOS. See List of Madagascar (franchise) characters for an article that deals with creatures. A lot of cartoon articles have similar lists. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there is? There already is a List of Primeval characters (though it suffers from many of the same problems as this list) so clearly there is a difference. The characters in Madagascar are characters; you'll notice that different lions have different entries for instance. The MOS does not cover "list of creatures"-type articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lord give me strength. Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs. I did not say that they are the same. I don't know any simpler way to state that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Lord give me strength"??? The only lists that MOS:TV brings up are Lists of characters and lists of episodes, it says nothing about other lists. The section about cast and character lists, which you seem to be referring to even though it does not necessarily apply to this entirely different type of list, specifically points out that editors should remember to follow the notability guidelines and that these kind of lists should avoid serving as repositories of excessive in-universe information, both points that the Primeval creature list breaks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Lord give me strength"! The only lists that MOS:TV brings up - Please read what I wrote, it's very clear: Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs. I didn't mention MOS:TV in that. You're making assumptions, and bad ones at that. Where something is not specifically addressed in the MOS (not just MOS:TV, I'm talking about the whole MOS!) we look to other parts of the MOS for guidance. That means, in the case of TV programs, we look at how MOS:TV treats other similar type lists. If we can't find a section of MOS:TV that covers what we are looking at, we'll go elsewhere in the MOS. For example, some of the guidance we follow comes from MOS:FILM. This is done for consistency, which is why we treat lists of creatures as we would treat lists of characters. It's common sense. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Writing "lord give me strength" and that I'm making "bad assumptions" is a bit much, don't you think? The problem here is that "Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs" is your own opinion; you write yourself that the MOS says nothing about this. You can't refer to the MOS for keeping a list of creatures and at the same time admit that the MOS doesn't actually say anything about this. Of course, this points matters very little since the list still fails numerous other policies (mentioned and explained by me and others below), including WP:LISTN, WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm making "bad assumptions" is a bit much, don't you think? - No, I don't think that based on a nearly 10 year association with this article.
 * Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs" is your own opinion; - No, it's not my opinion. It's the way that we've handled these lists based on my 13 years plus association with the TV project, creating and editing articles, editing the various infoboxes and providing input into the multiple discussions that we have had about MOS:TV over the years. May I ask how many TV articles you have edited?
 * You can't refer to the MOS for keeping a list of creatures and at the same time admit that the MOS doesn't actually say anything about this. - Yes I can because that's how the system works, at least for the subjects that I have edited. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This reply reads like gatekeeping to me. My previous experience with TV-related articles (I have edited some FYI) has no relevance in this discussion. The fact that you have a "nearly 10 year association" with the article and that you've still failed to see how it violates WP:LISTN, WP:PLOT and WP:GNG is far more problematic. Maybe it's not your opinion but I was forced to assume as much since it is not explicitly covered in the MOS. Yes I can - no you can't???? Your original argument, This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV, becomes entirely void when the MOS does not saying anything about lists other than lists of characters or episodes. You can't appeal to the MOS if what you're talking about isn't actually in the MOS. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My previous experience with TV-related articles (I have edited some FYI) has no relevance in this discussion. It does when you claim that something that I know to be true based on significant experiences is just my opinion. The fact that you have a "nearly 10 year association" with the article and that you've still failed ... - the fact that you are still harping on this demonstrates that you have failed to understand the problem with supplying sources for the article. The content had sources. Some of the citations in the article have been removed and most of the sources have been lost over time. No doubt this was taken into account at the previous AfDs which is why it survived all three.

Your original argument, ... becomes entirely void - No it doesn't, for the reasons that I have already explained and which you still don't seem to understand. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You never provided anything (and still haven't FYI) to showcase that what you're saying isn't just your opinion. "Still harping this"? It's the fundamental issues with the article that we're discussing - of course I'm still bringing them up since you have still failed to explain why they are not issues or how they could be fixed. Your original argument does become void. If you appealing to the MOS, but what you are saying isn't in the MOS, then there is no argument. Since you bring up the sources that "once existed" below as well, I will be responding to that point below. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles related to Jurassic Park get a combined nearly 30,000 daily views on average (just counting the films and main franchise article), as opposed to around 750 per day for all Primeval related articles, there's really no contest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said there was a contest. The Jurassic Park comparison is still WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The information here is almost entirely unsourced, and what few sources there are do not appear to be from reliable, secondary sources. The previous AFDs (the most recent being over six years ago, so no, this renomination is not "vexatious") were kept on comments founded entirely on WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments, with no actual policy based arguments as to why this unsourced information passes WP:LISTN.  I might have suggested a light merge somewhere if there was actually any reliably sourced information worth preserving, but there is not.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV.. The concept of Primeval was driven by the success of Walking with Dinosaurs and, while the human stars are important, the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs. There are simply too many to include in the the main article so this article was created. The article doesn't just cover the creatures from Primeval, it also includes creatures from its spinoff, Primeval: New World. Nothing has changed since the last nomination and this nomination seems more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator is incorrect in saying There are no reliable, third-party sources that establish this as a notable subject as there are several reliable secondary sources in the article.Similarly, claims that The information here is almost entirely unsourced is incorrect. There are 23 sources in the article. Much of the information is from actual episodes, which are regarded as acceptable primary sources. That said, at the last AfD the article had 41 references and it now has only 23. I have no idea why many were removed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The only commentary that the secondary sources appear to provide on the notability of the animals is the visual development and CGI. This could easily go in the main article. Not to mention half of the links in the references are dead with no archive links and many of the surviving ones appear to be promotional material from ITV or similar. You have a problem when your article relies mostly on primary sources (as WP:PRIMARY very clearly states!). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I replied to the other person who wanted to keep the article above, I fail to see how my nomination is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; the flaws I point out are actual flaws that go against Wikipedia policies. That the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs is a matter of opinion, and MOS:TV says nothing about lists of creatures or monsters. The idea that the 23 sources in the article somehow serve to cite the entire 126 kb list is ridiculous; a vast majority of the info in the list (including many whole entries) is unsourced. The claim that there are several reliable secondary sources in the article is misleading and disingenuous; there are only a handful of sources that are not episodes of the series itself (I mistrust the claim that these would constitute acceptable primary sources) or accompanying websites created by the series production team, many of the sources no longer work as websites have been removed. None of the sources cited succeed in establishing how the creatures in Primeval are a notable subject in of themselves, especially not to the extent that a overly detailed list is needed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion regarding flaws. As for That the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs is a matter of opinion is incorrect. The program is a series that resulted from Walking with Dinosaurs and the purpose was to showcase the dinosaurs. The entire premise is the interaction with dinosaurs in the modern day with the humans being the means to achieve that end.
 * there are only a handful of sources that are not episodes of the series itself It was more than a handful. but obviously some have been removed but WP:N doesn't define a set number of references provided for each klobyte. In fact you should be looking at readable prose, not the file size, of which there is only 82kB. That's one reference for every 3.56kB of readable prose.
 * I mistrust the claim that these would constitute acceptable primary sources - Mistrust all you want. There is a long-standing acknowledgement that episodes constitute acceptable primary sources. If you have an issue with that, take it up at WT:TV.
 * many of the sources no longer work as websites have been removed. - That is irrelevant. WP:DEADREF is clear: Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has survived 3 previous well-attended nominations, all of which were closed as "Keep", not "no consensus". That's a clear signal that the community does not see a need to delete this article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was last nominated for deletion six years ago if the last AfD was one month ago or even one or two years ago I could see your point, but don't pretend that a 2014 AfD is a barrier to a new nomimation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That it was last nominated 6 years ago demonstrates that in that time nobody has thought the article needs deletion. That the opinions are from 6 years ago isirrelevant. Notability is not temporary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A clear signal from over five years ago, mind you. I would wager that popular opinion has shifted since.
 * For what this article should look like, we may look to any featured list of characters from a television program. Consider List of The Mandalorian characters. Each character is summarized with both one paragraph of plot (sourced to secondary sources) and one paragraph of commentary on the character's development history and reception. There is literally not one sentence that is not supported by a citation.
 * Now suppose we pared down this article so that each creature listed would have commentary of similar quality. We might be left with a few sentences each for the future predator, megopteran, and maybe Anurognathus, Pristichampsus, the giant spider, and the camo beast. There is nothing here that isn't either plot-derived fancruft or something that can go in a "creature design" section on the main page. Strong case for at least a merge if not a delete. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is popular opinion? We don't delete articles just because opinion has changed.
 * For what this article should look like ... I actually agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, the article has been edited significantly in the past 6 years by people who don't seem to understand that these are fictional dinosaurs, many only loosely based on the original dinosaurs. The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. Additionally, people were changing descriptions to something based on the real dinosaurs, not the dinosaurs that were featured. Most recently, an editor made significant changes to the article, none of which I've had time to check yet and some of the edits are dubious. As I said, at the last AfD the article had about 40 citations. That has been reduced to 23 for unknown reasons. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got little to add to the counter-arguments by and, but "the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs" is definitely a matter of opinion unless you can substantiate this claim with sources. The premise of the series or what previous work the production company did (Walking with Dinosaurs was created in 1999, eight years before Primeval, a more direct precursor would be Prehistoric Park) makes no difference. I can only speak about the article as it stands now and I am not wrong in there only being a handful of non-primary sources in the article, which (as previously pointed out) goes against WP:PRIMARY. Having a list of this type, this extensive, for Primeval and sourcing it is going to be impossible without almost exclusively using primary sources - a massive problem. The fact that there are so few non-primary sources speaks against the notability of this topic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources on fictional topics are fine for supporting information, but not for establishing notability. The fact that nearly every source here is primary does not actually help this pass WP:LISTN.  And its not just the episodes themselves that are the primary sources - all of the links to ITV's website would be considered primary as well, as they are the network that produced and aired the series.  Its true that character lists can be valid splits from notable series, but those lists still need to be able to be comprised of information cited to reliable, secondary sources, and be able to pass WP:LISTN.  There have been plenty of character lists that have not survived an AFD due to not being able to pass those requirements.  Rorshacma (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the sources from the 2014 version of the article were either A. secondary sources (like academic books etc) that discussed the actual prehistoric animal, but were irrelevant to Primeval itself, B. citations to episodes and other primary sourced material about Primeval, which do not establish notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was also inclined to make the comparison to lists of characters, at first, but there's simply not a comparable amount of information to be said. Characters are original creations of the show which can warrant their own sections of information each, but these are mostly real animals and as such there's very little to say about them in relation to Primeval in particular. Ultimately I don't hold a strong stance either way but I don't think carrying the logic form those examples holds up.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One could make the case that the future animals are original creations but I doubt there is a lot of commentary to be cited. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * but these are mostly real animals - That is incorrect and is part of the problem. Most of the creatures are fictionalised versions of "real" dinosaurs but many are not. As I've already stated elsewhere the article has been edited significantly in the past 6 years by people who don't seem to understand that these are fictional dinosaurs, many only loosely based on the original dinosaurs. The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. Additionally, people were changing descriptions to something based on the real dinosaurs, not the dinosaurs that were featured.
 * I doubt there is a lot of commentary to be cited. - Such commentary has been referred to as fancruft. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The commentary being offered currently is being labelled as fancruft here precisely because it isn't cited. It's just fans writing stuff. Had it been attributable to a source discussing these creatures, their significance and their differences to real animals there would not be a problem. The fact of the matter is that there are no reliable sources that can be used to cite such commentary, which in turn means that the topic as a whole is not notable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uncited content does not automatically become fancruft either.
 * there are no reliable sources that can be used to cite such commentary, which in turn means that the topic as a whole is not notable. - That's not at all correct. Perhaps you read WP:N, specifically WP:GNG. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the significant, independent (per WP:GNG) coverage of how creatures in Primeval differ from their real counterparts? Examples, please. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As alludes to, there is no significant independent coverage of how the creatures in Primeval differ from the real creatures that they are based on. No, uncited content is not automatically fancruft but if said uncited content can't be cited because it's just fans that have been writing it without consulting any sources, then that uncited content is original research and fancruft, unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, a topic for which no reliable sources exist should not have an article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the significant, independent - Primeval finished airing over 9 years ago. Like just about every other TV program, sources tend to be archived or deleted over time and disappear from the web. Many are never archived by sites like archive.org while the program is airing. This is a continuing problem with most TV programs and Primeval is no different. That doesn't mean the sources never existed. At the time, because it was a current program and Walking with Dinosaurs had been so popular, there was discussion. Unfortunately, also like most programs, those editing the article didn't always add sources when they should have. Unfortunately, my involvement with the articles didn't start until less than a year before the final episode so it was too late for me to add them.
 * if said uncited content can't be cited because it's just fans that have been writing it without consulting any sources, - I like to assume good faith as we are supposed to do but I do check articles as I'm watching through a series and most of what was in the article back then was taken directly from the episodes, as well as some external sources. When I was working on Infobox Primeval creature I had to verify a lot of information that didn't seem right so I don't believe there was much, if any, fancruft back then. More recently, fancruft may have been added but that's not a reason to delete an article, that's a reason to fix the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PUBLISH: all reliable sources must be both published and accessible. Postulating the hypothetical existence of unarchived sources is in no way sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In the same way a play staged in Cambridge in 1639 is not notable if there are no surviving sources that discuss it even if it was the talk of the town. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Postulating the hypothetical existence - There is no postulation involved. I see that you have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years. Surely you must be familiar with what happens to sources over time. Maybe it's different in the dinosaur world where things happen more slowly. I the TV world there is a huge turnover.
 * In the same way a play staged in Cambridge in 1639 is not notable if there are no surviving sources - Notability is not temporary. Something doesn't become non-notable just because sources have disappeared. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making postulations. You can assume all you want that editors throughout the list's existence used sources to back up what they were writing, but you haven't presented any evidence that they've done that and without any surviving sources (if sources had been used it would have been a huge coincidence that every single source that drew comparisons between the animals and their real-life counterparts happened to disappear) it matters very little. is entirely correct in that reliable sources need to be published and accessible, which any hypothetical sources are not in this case. Something does not become non-notable if sources disappear, no, but in this case there is considerable doubt if any sources existed in the first place and thus if the subject was ever notable. Furthermore, articles (and lists) need to be built on reliable sources; if sources don't exist the articles shouldn't either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making postulations. - Not at all. The sources existed. Remember, I was editing the articles near the end of the series' airing, so I know what was around.
 * You can assume all you want - Indeed. WP:AGF is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles but, as I've already said, I've verified a lot of the information that was in the article. Not so much the recent stuff but definitely the earlier content.
 * it would have been a huge coincidence that every single source that drew comparisons between the animals and their real-life counterparts happened to disappear - No it wouldn't. As I've already said, this happens with TV articles all the time.
 * in this case there is considerable doubt if any sources existed in the first place - That's not assuming good faith. Were you editing Wikipedia TV articles back in the early 2010s? You can't say no sources existed if you don't have proof.
 * if sources don't exist the articles shouldn't either. - That's true when articles are initially created but, 9 years after a program has stopped airing, you can expect that most sources won't exist anymore and this sis supported by WP:DEADREF. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the list as it was in July 2011, less than a month after the series stopped airing, when it supposedly contained all those additional reliable sources you're talking about. There are more sources featured, yes, but the list still suffered from the exact same problems back then, with most entries lacking sources and most of them being composed of unnecessary plot summaries. Almost none of the references serve to establish this as notable in any way, with many being references to the episodes themselves (failing to establish notability since they are not independent of the source material), the accompanying ITV websites or websites relating to the production of the series such as the Framestore site or the site of Douglas Henshall, an actor who appeared in the show. Other references to stuff like papers in journals work to cite the real-world bits but do nothing for the stuff in the actual show and do not work if used to cite differences between the real animals and the ones in the series since they do not include that commentary. "I've verified a lot of the information that was in the article" yeah, well it didn't hold up in 2011 either... Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as being unsourced, non-notable fancruft, Content could easily be covered (more intelligibly, I might add) on the list of episodes (if there is one). And if fans really want this list, I'm sure Fandom/Wikia has a place for it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of those claims are incorrect. There are 23 sources in the article so it's clearly not unsourced and plot information is not fancruft unless there is excessive, unnecessary detail. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced in so far that a majority of the content is unsourced. I don't see how it is not extremely evident from just looking at the article that there indeed is excessive, unnecessary detail. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When I read through the article (and yes, I read through the entire thing), I was looking at how many of the entries had citations attached to them, rather than the number at the bottom. Most did not; as such, I would call it unsourced for that reason.
 * There is also an excess of barely-understandable plot details. Additionally, the pictures should either be removed or replaced with ones from the actual show.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An article lacking sources is not considered to be unsourced. Even external links are considered to be sources when it comes to deletion. (Try prodding an article with no citations and only 1 external link as unsourced. The prod will be rejected) Where content is unsourced it should be deleted or, better still, the unsourced content should be tagged with citation needed.
 * there indeed is excessive, unnecessary detail - I do agree but that is not a reason for deletion. Some additional detail is necessary to differentiate between the real dinosaurs and the fictional dinosaurs.
 * the pictures should either be removed or replaced with ones from the actual show. - It helps to read the entire discussion before commenting I've already said The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. It would be much better to have screenshots, but that was rejected. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But the additional detail doesn't differentiate between the real dinosaurs and the fictional dinosaurs? 90% of the article is literally plot summaries. Putting in the "real" dinosaurs would make barely any difference. I can literally just go to List of Primeval episodes for the same content. If we cut out all of the plot fancruft we'd be left with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH commentary on the inaccuracies of the depictions. In principle that's the kind of content the article should have, but this simply can't be reliably sourced. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  killer bee    13:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Rorshacma. There just aren't the sources to justify something like this. And there is rarely anything to be said about under-characterized in-universe elements that would arise beyond WP:PLOT, which has been a policy that articles are expected to pass. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a fancruft monster manual directory for TV series.   // Timothy ::  talk  17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A list that gets into overly intense detail about the source material, fails WP:LISTN.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN says nothing about excessive detail. Excessive detail is not a reason to delete. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The list still fails WP:LISTN since it directly goes against this bit: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. There aren't any independent reliable sources that discuss the material in this article as a set in any meaningful way, much less any reliable sources that could be used for its content. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per above.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am gobsmacked that this has survived so many AfDs. Very blatant failure of LISTN and GNG, not to mention OR concerns. There is no evidence whatsoever that this has gained enough real world coverage and significance to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. By all means, create a Primeval fandom wiki and host the content there. Spiderone  23:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed one exists and has a better list... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as a failure of WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and WP:PLOT. There is no out-of-universe context from reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:38, 23 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.