Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future predator

Future predator

Delete Most of This page should be deleted. Most of it is fan fiction, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page (most of the data is just stolen from that page so this is realy just a duplicate page padded out with waffle), and this creature, from a little known series has no claim on notibility, not enought to warrent more than a sub-section on the Primeval creatures page. It also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the entry for this creature on the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Not to mention the conflict of interest. Nubula 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. I have corrected this nomination's formatting. Natalie 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, the Primeval creatures page does not have precident; see here for an example of a page deleted as a result of a newer page coming in. While it makes no logical sence to have two articles on the same subject, we only have that because any attempt to fix the problem is reverted by you as vandalism. The article does require cleanup and referencing, but I feel the article is salvigable and we should make an effort to do that.--OZ OO (What?) 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubula (talk • contribs)

Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZ OO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about notability. It role so far does not make it important enough in my mind for its own page. If you could prove that this creature is sooo important to the mythos in second series that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote but I'm uncovinced that this creature will achive anything more than a random monster of the week status. Also, as I see it, if it turns out your right and I'm wrong we can just re-create this page. Nubula 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears in the second series then it will have appeared in one-sixth of the episodes. (Assuming series two is 6 episodes long). Given that it is confirmed, it would appear to me to be a notable monster. --OZ OO (What?) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childish evasions. Re-appearing in the second series does not make it noteworthy. Importance to the story and presence in popular culture is what makes a character notable. So I say again prove that this creature is sooo important to the Primeval mythos that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote. Because of this moment you have nothing. Nubula

Weak keep. This article appears to be primarily original research, even after I added a refs section. While it may be notable, it needs verifiable and reliable sources. Any out there? Bearian 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not realy. Nubula 02:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not realy that noteworthy. But may be in the future. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to List of creatures in Primeval. Without significant real-world information, there is no need to get this detailed about this particular creature. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]