Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film. Cited sources only talk about the extinction of dinosaurs without mentioning the film at all. Notability is clearly lacking and fails WP:NFILM. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films featuring dinosaurs. I find it mentioned here and there, but no significant coverage, and it was only 10 minutes long. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mark F. (2002). The Dinosaur Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-0-7864-2453-5. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The book review the film on pages 84–86 and mentions the film on pages 9, 10, 11, and 357. The book notes: "Commentary: Dinosaurs ... The Terrible Lizards is an unexpectedly polished-looking film, especially in light of the limited resources from which Wah Chang created it. The animation is skilled and the puppets are excellent, without exception. Chang managed to save some time and effort by fashioning more than one head which could be fitted onto the same body, thus converting a Triceratops into a Styracosaurus, then into a Monoclonius, then into a Chasmosaurus, and so on. This tactic helped allow him to parade a small smorgasbord of saurians across the screen, with no fewer than 13 different prehistoric species glimpsed or featured during the film's ten-minute run time. Throughout the film, Chang adds little touches that are unusual for an "educational" film, and that reflect the care he always brought to his art."
2. Thrash, Sarah (June–July 1987). "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.)". School Library Journal. Vol. 33, no. 10. p. 64. EBSCOhost 5715370.
  The review notes: "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.). 16mm or videocassette. color. 91⁄2 min. Aims. 1986. #9833. 16mm: $250; videocassette: $190 (Rental: $50). Preview avail. Gr 1–8—This lively, animated film shows the evolution of dinosaurs, iden tifies major types, and describes their physical characteristics. The terms are explained and defined to make them more understandable to younger students, and names are superimposed on the screen. In explaining the environment during the time of the dinosaurs, however, not enough information is included on the changes that took place on the earth, and only one theory about the ending of this period is provided. The organization of the material is clear. The only inconsistency is the inclusion of a fully evolved man and woman that are irrelevant to the time period of the film. An interesting film, useful for individual or group viewing."
3. Bykerk-Kauffman, Ann (May 1995). "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (revised)". Journal of Geological Education. 43: 272. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.3.266. ISSN 0022-1368. EBSCOhost 508557355.
  The abstract notes: "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (Revised) ($50), from AIMS Media, is a 10-minute videotape that features the locations of dinosaur finds on a world map; gives a very brief synopsis of the evolution of life on Earth; and focuses on showing, naming, and describing various types of dinosaur. This program is intended for children aged 7–13 years, is very appealing to children, but contains little scientific information."
4. Garrison, Jim (Winter 1971). "Dinosaurs ... the Terrible Lizards". Cinefantastique. Vol. 1, no. 2. p. 32. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Although Dinosaurs...the Terrible Lizards will probably be viewed by only a few fortunate students in the junior high level science classes in the Los Angeles City Schools, its realistic cinematic monsters are as lifelike as any used in a major studio production. Largely a natural history documentary, the film was produced in color by Wah Chang, of "Projects Unlimited" fame, and animated by Douglas Beswick for the Los Angeles Board of Education, and brings to life most of the dinosaurs of the past. There are approximately twelve to fifteen different types of these beasts in the film, including Brontosaurus, Ceolophysis, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Monoclonius, and the Tyranosaurus Rex. Narrated in laymen's terms, the film explains the general lifecycle of dinosaurs and why they became extinct. It also describes through diagrams how large some dinosaurs were: one diagram compares a Brontosaurus to an ordinary one-story house."
5. This Film & Video Review Index notes:
  DINOSAURS: THE TERRIBLE LIZARDS [MP]
  Encyclopedia Britannica 1977 24M $320P $25R Order #3504 Previews 7:3 Nov78 p14 Michele Smith
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cunard's sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect, it would be nice to have these newly found sources get an additional review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The excellent research by Cunard shows that the film is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reviews are from reputable sources. Clearly notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2024 (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.