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. The nominator is encouraged to pay particular attention to DGG's remarks concerning WP:BEFORE. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

List of giant animals in fiction[edit]

List of giant animals in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is nothing but WP:OR. The list will never be anything beyond a list of characters that users like and think are moderately large. Unless there are reliable sources which describe a good amount of fictional characters as giant, then it will never be encyclopedic, and it would even be questionable then. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some animals may be disputable, but some are indisputable, like Godzilla; But if we don't want to use common sense, there we could finds sources for describing him as a giant: see a few thousand of them [1] in just Google Scholar , in fact, the third item on that search talks about both of them him and King Kong as giants in a comparison). So there are two at least which count, and so actual sources are possible for items in this list. I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement for any AfD involving sources or notability. Besides saving work for everyone else, it would guard people from making (some) public errors. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so we have two, but I doubt the list would get very large, and most entries would still be OR. On another note, why is this encyclopedic? Godzilla could also fit under List of fictional green animals, but that, and this list, violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – We have lists of List of giants in mythology and folklore – List of giant sequoia groves – List of giants – list of giant squid specimens and sightings – List of giant monster films and on and on and on. Why not List of giant animals in fiction? It is informative, can be easily sourced and is a viable search term. What more can we ask for an article here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I doubt that most entries will be original research. There is a lot of giant monster movies. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that all the lists given above are different things than the current list. In this list, "giant" is an arbitrary adjective that can be applied at an editor's whim, whereas the lists you gave include "giant" as a noun and giant monster movies are a film subgenre, and giant squid does not refer to squids which are giant, but to an actual unique species. In every case, those lists are not related to this one in any way; they are clearly defined, while this one is arbitrary and OR. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Shoessss is the one who used that argument. Giant monster movies is a film subgenre, but what is in many of them? Giant animals like giant spiders, fish, and lizards. Starting there would be a good start. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or mythical animals like Cerberus, griffins, Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need a definition. From Wiktionary, inadequate as I think it usually is for definitions, it's just "very large." American Heritage, which I think does things clearly, has "a person or thing of extraordinary size", which would imply a rabbit , or whatever, being presented in the film specifically as extraordinarily larger than typical for that sort of animal, or for animals in general. I consider OED useless for this sort of thing as it gives every meaning found. Variations are possible. I agree it's vague along the fringes. most qualitative terms are, but they still have meaning. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize for accidentally putting my comment under the wrong person. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It reads like WP:OR and there are no references. It is also confusing because some of these animals are actually monsters from movies or characters from Pokemon cartoons. Warrah (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Generally as listcruft and more specifically as original research about a collection of information which is not notable as the list itself hasn't been duplicated in this manner in other reliable sources. We can't publish lists like this if they are not already commented-on in reliable, third-party sources. Bringing together a collection of notable entities as an article in itself is original research unless the list itself has recieved significant attention. ThemFromSpace 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Not a very good article right now, but sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No one has provided evidence that the page is irredeemable. It's certainly notable. Abyssal (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.