Deletion of Living dinosaurs

Comment: Both the objections to this article  and  have been removed by Pengo and Pixelface. With no other objection this leaves the article as a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)

Comment: EC)  The article is improper |synthesis, and there is adequate coverage of the subparts of the article in the linked main articles on birds and creationism. The remaining bits can be incorporated to Cryptozoology or List of Cryptids as appropriate. Title can become a redirect to the later article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Delete not sufficiently notable for an article,  whirlpool, cryptozoology can be much expanded with this sort of thing in a more helpful setting. Also, see Bird
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: As the page currently sits, it is a textbook example of .   However, I agree that others may search for this term.    Cryptozoology fits as a redirect target as it deals with the theory of dinosaurs that still live.   Living fossil fits as a redirect as possible term confusion.   Whichever one it goes on, that page should use {{tl|redirect}} to point it to the other page.   All other terms on that page are currently synthesized original research by falsely associating "living dinosaurs" with the origins of birds, creationism, etc
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: notable term http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22Living+dinosaur%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Living+dinosaurs%22&ie=UTF-8, well suited for a  page now that  and OR issues have been addressed.  From the sources found, looks like it may even make a good, full article at some point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB||WP:N||WP:NOR)

Comment: relevant info into Dinosaur and Cryptozoology. There's some valid sources in here, but it's mixed in with  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: I just made a couple of Google searches to test the water.  "Loch Ness monster" produces 780000 hits, while "bird"+"dinosaur" produces 510000.  This confirms my impression that the Didacticism|didacts here have their work cut out for them.  But, so far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not have a didactic goal.  One of the |Nots even says that it is explicitly not a work of instruction.  In other words, we are not here to tell people |The Truth
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRUTH)