Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus in popular 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was deleted at a mass AfD. DRV overturned, since the mass AfD may have prevented the full consideration the article's individual merits, and the possibility of a merge. Deletion is on the table here, as is any merge that would make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 04:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Keep per Pixelface, in regard to what was achieved with Stegosaurus in popular culture. --Teggles 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Tyrannosaurus already covers the most notable examples of general, film and television appearances. In cases like toys and video games, it fails to mention anything, instead simply stating that they exist. This is an easily fixed problem. There is the possibility of discussing their designs relative to the original T. rex (or why they are chosen), but I am doubtful that adequate sources exist. --Teggles 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps rewrite like Stegosaurus in popular culture, although the article looks OK to me as it is. T. rex is the most widely recognized dinosaur in popular culture. There appears to be enough information to warrant it's own article. And the information is verifiable. I don't think the article counts as a directory of loosely associated topics as claimed in the mass AFD. Wikipedia has many list articles grouped by theme. WP:N applies to article topics -- every single sentence within an article is not required to meet the notability guidelines. --Pixelface 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "It has a dinosaur in it" is not a "theme." Otto4711 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - T. rex has books written about it with whole chapters on pop culture depictions, which formed the fist part of the article. It is thus (a) referenced, and (b) obviously notable. I have been in touch with people today who've pointed me in the direction of more published material - thus there is sufficient published critique/analysis so that there should be no OR in the article. The reason it has not been merged in the main Tyrannosaurus article is that it is already a very large article - and, like other parts, segments have been split into subarticles to keep the origianl to a manageable size. Given there are more books there is a potential for the cohesive/referenced part of this TiPC article to grow considerably. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Once proposal mooted is to rename the article Cultural depictions of Tyrannosaurus, if folk prefer.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS: For the record - there are more books here and here that we haven't tapped yet, so, um, yes, there's plenty of written material to tunr listy bits into a theme without OR.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I've stayed out of the great "in popular culture" deletion orgy of 2007 but the line has to be drawn somewhere.  Some things have a significant and important role in popular culture.  It's anti-encyclopedic to delete these articles without consideration of their merits.  This has good sources with more to come, and is being improved by some of the wiki's best editors.  Other issues belong at the talk page. --JayHenry 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - As I stated in the group AfD, articles should be deleted if they aren't notable and shouldn't be deleted just because it's poorly written (As per WP:RUBBISH). I don't think anyone can debates that T rex and its depiction in Popular culture aren't notable, so I see no reason as to why it should be deleted. In fact I don't know why it was in the first case, seeing as there was a large consensus not to delete this particular article in the group AfD. With a bit of hard work (And possibly a name change as noted on the WP:DINO talk page and previously in the afd which started all this, Articles for deletion/Lions in popular culture) this article could be greatly improved. Spawn Man 07:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the article is on a worthwhile topic, but in it's current form is total rubbish, just a long list of pointless trivia. If it's kept, it needs to be re-written, in prose, with sources (similar to Dinosaurs in popular culture or Stegosaurus in popular culture). If nobody is willing or able to do this fairly soon, then there's no reason to keep it. If and when somebody wants to create something useful here, they can always just start the article fresh. As it stands, there's no content in this article I think would be worth keeping, so losing history etc. is irrelevent. Dinoguy2 07:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup - Tyrannosaurus is arguably the most published dinosaur ever, it has been featured in features since movies are movies, there is sufficient material to work with its just a matter of time and patience. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete again - for all the same reasons it was deleted the first time. It's a directory of loosely associated topics, a list of "ooh look, a big dinosaur on my TV!" references. The article tells us nothing about the dinosaurs, nothing about the fiction from which the trivia is drawn, nothing about any relationship between them (because there isn't any) and nothing about the world. And as an aside, the notion that editors were unable to consider this article fairly the first time because it was nominated with a handful of similar articles is ludicrous on its face and insulting to editors' intelligence. Otto4711 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether anything merits a separate popular culture article is always going to be a judgment call, but Tyrannosaurus very easily meets that bar.  It makes such a satisfactory monster that it has been used dozens of time, with various plot devices allowing it to interact with human victims.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Topic is very notable, but article in its current shape has little, if any encyclopedic value, and will have to be entirely rewritten anyway. Circeus 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Article was turned into proper, sourced prose. Circeus 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A change to the form of the article does not mean that the content is any less trivial. Otto4711 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a list of loosely associated topics, where anything would qualify for inclusion if a T-REX makes a cameo appearances.  Merge the notable ones into the main article (if that) Corpx 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I chopped off over half of the article and turned it into paragraphs. Does that help? J. Spencer 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I move for Keeping the article, but maybe deleting some of the more obscure references. K00bine 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the article looks a lot better now thanks to J Spencer. However, all the fair use pictures need fair use rationale. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn topic, anything and everything has been referenced in popular culture, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. And I could care less if a list was turned into a paragraph, it's still a bunch of cruft trivia. Biggspowd 05:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic and article is in fairly good shape, and is improving. AndyJones 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started this article fairly lazily, for which I apologise, and it's only recently been shaped into something respectable. Give it time, it'll mature into a decent article I'm sure, and at least it prevents the excellent Tyrannosaurus article getting flooded with pop culture junk. Calr 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Calr et al., but changes to form or name may be needed. Obviously notable concept. Bearian 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is much better. Though more sources are needed for some of the claims, I am sure sources can be found. I was looking at the original AfD, and people were asking for the trivia to be removed, but not realising that they were condemning a perfectly good title that could be home to a perfectly encyclopedic article. A brief search found the following articles on dinosaurs and popular culture (I realise this AfD is about Tyrannosaurus, but the principle is the same):
 * “Dinosaur Doctors and Jurassic Geniuses: The Changing Image of the Scientist in the Lost World Adventure.”  Studies in Popular Culture 22.1 (October 1999):  1-14.
 * "Ravaging Reptiles and Paranoid Speciesism in Dinosaur Films." Pacific North West Popular Culture Conference. Vancouver, British Columbia; April 1992.
 * "Cavemen and Dinosaurs: The 'Eat or Be Eaten' Myth." Popular Culture Association Conference. Louisville, Kentucky; March 1992.
 * "Medieval Dragons and Dinosaur Films." Popular Culture Review 9.1 (February 1998): 17-30.
 * "Dinophobia." Rocky Mountain MLA Conference. Scottsdale, Arizona; October 2002.
 * Hopefully people will look for references for cultural studies on notable topics, and replace trivia with such references, instead of deleting trivia out of hand. Source, establish notability, integrate, and provide a sourced overview, for notable topics, don't delete. Carcharoth 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, there will be some amount of what the pop culture warriors call "trivia" anyway. It's impossible tomake such an article without giving a number of examples. Circeus 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a major re-write has occurred, including seven in-line citations added. Non-trivial information outside of pop culture appearances, including the JP-Scipionyx connection and Phil Currie's inspiration, is included in the article. The crucial observation that T. rex is still widely viewed as the most fearsome predator despite larger theropods being discovered, is covered, albeit briefly. I'd like to see more of an examination of why this is so, but the article itself certainly does not merit deletion in its current condition: verified facts, non-trivial information, and appropriate quotations from notable sources from 1905 to the present. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I "voted" merge last time, but the article has been greatly improved. Excellent work -- Bláthnaid 11:34, 18 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.