Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular dinosaurs


 * 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 keep Dinosaurs and Stegosaurus as it's acually sourced prose with few pure trivia, delete and move to a subpage of User:AndyJones on the rest. Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete all - these are all directories of loosely associated topics, presented for the most part as bullet point lists but sometimes masking the bullet point "I spotted a dino!" references in prose. Yes, everybody loves dinosaurs and they show up in lots of movies and TV shows. Itemized lists of every appearance of dinosaurs or a specific species of dinosaur or something that looks like a dinosaur or may have been modeled on a dinosaur or named for a dinosaur tell us nothing about dinosaurs and nothing about the fiction from which these sightings of greater or lesser degrees of triviality are drawn. Oppose merging any of the material into any article about either dinosaurs in general or a specific species. Otto4711 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I have left a comment to WikiProject Dinosaurs about this. Circeus 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the few bits of analysis are OR. --Eyrian 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Otto4711 ,emphasizing the "I spotted a dino" aspect. Tomj
 * Strong keep Dinosaurs (as a friend of mine would say: "OMGWTFBBQ??"), neutral for the others. I'm leaning to merge the good information to Dinosaurs. Circeus 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You really should explain why you want something kept instead of just saying keep. Otto4711 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the main article is clearly encyclopedic in tone and content, duh. For the record, this is content that was, for the most part, spun off various Dinosaur FAs prior to their promotion. Circeus 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic articles cite sources. The only independently cited sentence in that article is "The popular preoccupation with dinosaurs also is reflected in a broad array of fictional and non-fictional works." --Eyrian 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Dinosaurs, perhaps Tyrannosaurus if it lost about three quarters of its size (as I have learned this week, people really like Tyrannosaurus if you ask them). "Dinosaurs" is the least "a dinosaur is present in X" of the submitted articles, and about the only one where interesting nontrivial things can be said (such as how the depiction of dinosaurs has changed in response to science and the prevailing culture). That such things have not been included, except in passing, is not the article's fault; perhaps a name change is in order? The rest are pretty meh, of the type of article to which an eager first-timer would add "X was in film or video game or tv show Y", although there has been a valiant effort to cite "Stegosaurus". J. Spencer 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all notable, relevant content in prose form into the main article andredirect. If this is not accomplished, then delete. VanTucky  (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture, which features some analysis (for which sources can be found) and shows restraint in the citation of examples. Delete the others. (The summary pop culture sections in the articles about the beasties themselves seem generally sufficient. They might be expanded a bit, but without bulleted lists of individual appearances.) Deor 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture as a well-sourced article and not a trivia list. Delete the others as OR and in violation of WP:TRIVIA.  Corvus cornix 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Listing every mention of a dinosaur in music/film/literature ("oh look, there's this band that has Brontosaurus in their name!") is clearly an indiscriminate list of information. Dinosaurs in popular culture may not be formatted in dot points, but it's still a trivia section in disguise. Spellcast 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all and remerge. These articles began as small subsections within their respective articles, and they need to go back. Back in December, user:Jyril began moving large numbers of subsections into their own articles. While this was BOLD, it allowed these articles (several of which were well-cited articles) to fall off people's watchlists and become crufty lists. Here is Stegosaurus in popular culture being moved to its own article. This happened to a great number of dinosaur articles, including Triceratops and many others (check Jyril's deleted contributions for a full list). At that time, I was concerned that these articles would become candidates for deletion (because they would fall off people's watchlists and become cruft-filled lists). That has happened. However, several of these did not begin life as crufty lists: Stegosaurus in popular culture started out with citations. Breaking off these sections has been detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole and to these articles specifically because the information in these articles may be lost in deletion. Dinosaurs have certainly influenced popular culture, but the opposite is also true: popular culture has also influenced scientific culture: Genera such as Scipionyx would not have been discovered without pop culture film Jurassic Park. Tying WP:DINO's hands by not allowing the re-merger of important content (important appearances in popular culture and pop culture events such as JP which shaped scientific understanding of these animals) back into the main article is, in my opinion, not a great idea. There is cruft here, but it can be cleaned up without the need for deletion, and I know six awesome editors who I can bet would be willing to help clean up this mess. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The answer is simple. Carry out the merge and redirect now. Carcharoth 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, the only difference between Dinosaurs in popular culture and other In popular culture articles that have recently been deleted is that it isn't a list, although the loosely related trivia it contains is still as bad, possibly worse, as original research has been used to exclude many notable examples and include obscure ones like the song "We Can All Get Along With Dinosaurs". Saikokira 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture. The only objection to this article seems to be that it contains the words "in popular culture". The other articles should be -- very selectively -- merged.  But this is a very valid encyclopedic topic, being perhaps the canonical example of a once-unknown category of knowledge that has permeated the popular mind -- and in ways very easily distinguished from scientific facts and theories about dinosaurs.  If there were only one "in popular culture" article, it probably should be this one. RandomCritic 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are several articles nominated here. You might want to specify which one you want kept. And to respond to your assertion that the articles are nominated only because of the titles, the reasons for the nomination are laid out in the nomination. If the same content were titled something different it would still be nominated. Otto4711 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might say that, but -- I don't believe you. RandomCritic 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look over the various "in fiction" and "cultural references" articles currently on the block. I'd've nominated these, except Otto got there first. --Eyrian 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If, RC. I gave a good goddamn what you believe or don't believe, I might be upset at your abject failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that a small number of people has freaked out over articles with certain words in their title -- for no better reason than the title -- and has gone on a crusade to purge WP of them, is not a refutation of my statement, but rather a confirmation of it. I believe this article was nominated solely for having the words "popular culture" in the title, and not for any solid exception that could be made to the content. RandomCritic 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can believe that angels flew out of Dick Cheney's ass and commanded me to nominate these articles for all I care. Your false beliefs have nothing to do with the reality of the nomination. Otto4711 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Triceratops in popular culture, no opinion on the others yet. Punkmorten 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep dinosaurs in popular culture - this is not a fictional topic - it is a real world topic that is encyclopedic. Suggest renaming to Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, per the many other 'cultural depictions' articles. See here. See Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great and Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar for informative articles on these topics. Cultural studies is a serious topic, and Wikipedia deleting a lot of its cultural trivia articles shows that it cannot take the topic seriously. Carcharoth 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cultural studies are absolutely an important topic. And they should be addressed just like any other wikipedia article: with structured detail backed by cited analysis. Imagine if the article on Titanium was simply a list of products that contained it. --Eyrian 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the first version of Titanium? Similarly, have a look at the first revision of Dinosaurs in popular culture. It is a split from the original article - thus if the verdict here is delete, then it should be redirected back to dinosaur. In fact, all these "in popular culture" articles should be redirected if the verdict is delete, otherwise someone will recreate them and if a good article results, then the early history will reside only in the page logs showing that once an earlier deleted article existed. Carcharoth 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The titanium diff you provided was six years old. Things were different then. Don't worry about recreation or reaccumulation; it's a personal policy of mine to keep main articles clean of spun-off then deleted trivia, and I'll happily do it here. --Eyrian 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Tyrannosaurus in popular culture - and rewrite using Stegosaurus in popular culture as the model to follow. Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Brontosaurus in popular culture back to Brontosaurus - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Dromaeosaurids in popular culture back to Dromaeosaurids - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Triceratops in popular culture back to Triceratops - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Stegosaurus in popular culture (the best example of how to handle this material) - well referenced and well-written. Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All but merge Dromaesaurids rather than keeping, as per Cartharothasaurus. Mandsford 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All - just a few of many WP pages that could use some refs and TLC. - Peregrine Fisher
 * Merge Brontosaurus in p.c. -> Brontosaurus, delete the rest Aparently Bronotosaurus was a scientific mistake or misnomer that really only "lived" in popular culture, hence merge that one, despite the nom's misgivings because it isn't a species of dinosaur: delete the rest per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the articles run from trivia to useless. Very few references of value; I see kn reason to keep these as independent articles. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture. Entire books have been written about this, eg and, so it is an encyclopedic topic with reliable sources available. Merge the other articles into either Dinosaurs in popular culture or the article about the dinosaur itself. -- Bláthnaid  08:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all why on earth...172.191.100.66 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep most - I think we should keep all of the above apart from Brontosaurus in popular culture & Dromaeosaurids in popular culture, which should either be merged or deleted. The others are notable enough to stand on their own feet, but as with most pop culture articles, need a lot of work. However, AFD is not a punishment for poor articles - if they're notable enough then they are allowed by policy to stay. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep most. Dinosaurs in Pop Culture is relavent, Stegosaurus is well written, and Tyrannosaurus is highly relavent due to its "superstar" status among dinosaurs. (Animal Planet even made a documentary about its pop culture appearences, I think.) I think Brontosaurus would best be merged with the Brontosaurus article, because as has been already said, it never really existed outside of pop culture. K00bine 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep most, but merge brontosaurus amd dromaeosaurids. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (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.