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 of the debate was no consensus. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 19:40, Dec. 25, 2005

We do not need a separate taxonomic article for every fictional appearance of a species. Judging from the Apatosaurus article, it also appears that this article is misleading. u p p l a n d 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has actually made a whole series of these articles on fictional dinosaurs looking misleadingly like real species articles. I suppose they could be merged with King Kong (2005 film), or in a List of animals in King Kong (2005 film), as long as this pseudo-taxonomy is lost. The fictional animals can link to articles on the real species instead. u p p l a n d 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, my first choice is to delete this. u p p l a n d 11:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needing its own article.Gateman1997 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge: I've made it respectable, but I don't care whether it's merged or not. Melchoir 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Melchoir. -- JJay 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too trivial to deserve mention on Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt is clear enough that it is fictional, I don't find it misleading.--Smerk
• Delete or merge, does not need its own article. -Sean Curtin 07:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, other fictional creatures are in wikipedia. -- Crevaner 09:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Brontosaurus as a Trivia or In Other Media mention --Seinfreak37 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, notable fictional dinosaur, of interest to Brontosaurus fans as well as King Kong fans. Kappa 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You've got to be kidding me. Are we going to see Crow (It's a Wonderful Life) next? Give it a one-line mention it in the Apatosaurus article. Everyone calls them Brontosaurses anyway. -R. fiend 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Apatosaurus and Delete. The brontosaurus was in the movie for 5 minutes and really didn't do nothing anything but run. We can't have pages on every character on every movie that ever existed fictional or not as it's just too much. There would be millions of articles like that. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all the foregoing. Absolutely does not need a separate article. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 00:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this stub with no expandability. Even merging all these into a list, as is normal for minor character articles, doesn't seem reasonable considering the overwhelming triviality.—jiy (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In Apatosaur, list it as a fictional member in the section about Apatosaurs in fiction. - — Ŭalabio‽ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unexpandable cruft. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how anyone could expand this. --SpacemanAfrica 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it can't be expanded. Maybe put all the information on the King Kong (2005 film) article? The names weren't even used in the film.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - not noteable enough in its own right.--SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I remember skimming this information recently in a book, I think it is from the new book, The World of Kong : A Natural History of Skull Island by Weta Workshop which gives more movie details about the animals of Skull Island. Should be kept because this would be good information for anyone interested in the subject. --Evmore 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 10:24, 22 December 2005 (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.