Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator Biology and Culture


 * 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. Jayron32. talk . contribs 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Predator Biology and Culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content fork of Predator (alien) after a long-awaited rewrite deleted all the in-universe fancruft from that article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the Predator (alien) article has wanted a cleaup and now it has. The fictional information has been removed, however, fictional infromation is in alot of articles. In the related (sort of, because of their crossover) Xenomorph article we have their information in design and real-world information combined with the fictional lore. I wanted to have that for the Predator's too, so instead of messing around with the article and ignoring everyone elses wishes for the cleanup i simply moved the information to another article so that we still have the fictional information that is displayed in other media, such as the Xenomorph, The Simpsons, Chucky, Freddy Kreuger etc. I feel this allows us to keep the actual information for real-world links in the Predator (alien) article and still allow for the fictional infromation in the Predator Biology and Culture article. Please consider what i have said, thank you S-m-r-t (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not have any articles which treat fictional content as real, and if examples exist in other domains (I know they're rife in Simpsons articles, for instance) that too should be addressed. But it is not a rationale for maintaining this particular in-universe article.
 * User:Dark hyena does, however, appear to be in the process of moving those parts of the biology/culture section which can be properly referenced back into the article. So the best bits will be preserved. You might want to discuss the issue with him to see if there's anything you could do to help out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: most anything salvageable from the article has now been moved back, sourced, into Predator (alien). So there's no longer an argument that we're losing material that could potentially be cleaned up. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The article even in its present form, makes clear they are fictional. There is no reason not to have a more detailed discussion of one of the aspects of the fiction in a separate article. The various items discussed, however, need to be cited properly from the actual sources in the fiction.DGG (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the point i was trying to get across. If we specify that it is fictional and improve the article i see no reason why we should delete it. S-m-r-t (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's probably an encyclopedic article to be written about this subject; however, this enormous chunk of completely original research is not it.  BLACK KITE  01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced speculation, synthesis, and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —--EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficiently notable to justify a separate article. Also, concerns about verifiability, and original research. Addhoc (talk) 15:07, 31 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.