Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. The arguments for merging weren't refuted by the keep votes. Many keep votes simply said that the article was well written, which didn't adress the concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study

[edit]
2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a well-made and well-sourced article on a paper which itself is non-notable. Parts of the content should probably be merged to Hadrosaur#Diet. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on individual papers on extinct genera, or we would already have thousands of articles on scientific papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention 9 Google hits 0 Google scholar hits. This paper may be notable someday, but it is not notable at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the search is only on the long-hand exact title there are a few number of hits, but if you used more general terms to search for this specific study, you'd find a whole lot more results. That's another reason I reverted the name back to its original, shorter one; naming conventions indicate a more common name would be preferred here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I support the change back to the shorter title. "Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in hadrosaurid dinosaurs, and the implications for hypotheses of jaw mechanics and feeding" wasn't an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been noted? And where has it received attention? I am normally an inclusionist, but I can't find any evidence that this paper has received much attention at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's title was originally much shorter, before being moved to this longer title. There's definitely worthwhile content here, but I feel an article coving just the one paper is inefficient, sets a bad precedent (because how many papers have been written about extinct animals? Should we have articles for all of them? Slippery slope... ), and is ultimately unencyclopedic (because not even specialized dinosaur encyclopedias contain this level of detail). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a shame that the hard work should be destroyed but an entire article on one study is problematic. There are no other palaeontology articles I know of that are souly about one study. Anyway science isn't about any single study, it's about many studies in combanation. This study isn't the end of the debate and other researchers have yet to have their opinions about it published, so it doesn't make sence to give this one special attention. But I agree with suggestions that some of this could be salvaged and turned into an article about Hadrosaur chewing and Diet research or the Diet section in Hadrosaurid could be expanded to include some of this info. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well cited with legitimate sources, which I believe by themselves indicate the article's notability. Not only were the findings themselves in this study very significant, but the method used to learn them was innovative and will be used in future studies. The article is really more about this important scientific study and what was learned, moreso than simply the journal article itself. But even if it were focused on the article itself, that wouldn't be all that outrageous; there are Wikipedia articles about journal articles out there. Obviously not every journal article in the world will warrant a Wikipedia article, but some will, and attention from nonbiased, legitimate, third party sources (i.e., the media) are a good indication of which ones are deserving. And finally, for me it all comes back to the question: is Wikipedia worse off, or better off, having this article? If somebody decided to look up this information on Wikipedia, what's the harm of having a page about it? I would argue Wikipedia is better for having it, not worse, so even putting aside all my other arguments I'd say screw it and let the article stay... (Please note: I also restored the name back to its original, shortened name.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sourcing and work you've done on this article. This is truly beautiful work, and it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. However, none of the sources listed appear to even mention the journal article's title by name. In other words, they're news stories which report that there's been a new study, and what the study finds, without even naming the study: they're less about the study, and more about the concept. That's why I'd support a merger into an article about hadrosaurid diet. But there are dozens of such studies every year, even studies which are widely reported in the press. That doesn't make the studies themselves notable: these AP articles are just news items announcing a new paper, the name of the paper itself apparently unprintworthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a way, I think you're making my case for me. You're saying these articles aren't only about the paper, but about the entire study in general. That's exactly what this article is about (not just a single article, but the hypotheses, the method, the findings, its relevance with regard to other studies, the whole she-bang). That's why I think this article is warranted; it's about more than just a single journal article; but at the same time, that doesn't mean it doesn't all fall under the umbrella of a this specifc Purnell study. Obviously, all these articles and sources about this study; they weren't just randomly written articles about hadrosaur eating habits in general. (That's why I think the title as it was before wasn't accurate, because it made it seem like the scope was limited to just this one article.) But I don't want to get this AFD too bogged down in a point-counterpoint discussion between two people, and I don't think it's fair to respond to every single person I disagree with. I've said my peace and would rather hear other people say theirs. — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article as it is now is very limited. It concerns just one study, while an article which discusses many different hadrosaur feeding studies would be more balanced. This article gives undue weight to one very recent study, without the benefit of time. We don't know what aspects of this paper will be accepted by the scientific community and what portions revised by later authors. Above, you link to Category:Journal articles. But the papers in that category are ones which appear to have stood the test of time. The first one I clicked on apparently "form[s] the foundation of chemical thermodynamics as well as a large part of physical chemistry" while another "was the first publication which described the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA". This paper doesn't fall in that league. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hadrosaurid or any other relevant article. There's good content here, but the study itself certainly doesn't merit an article. Alternatively, if there is too much information to merge, create an article on hadrosaurid feeding based on this content. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it Hadrosaur diet or Hadrosaurid feeding per mgiganteus1 (basically a daughter article of Hadrosaurid) and make its focus slightly more general, and less a discussion only of a single article. I doubt if the article itself is notable, but the topic certainly is, and probably the article is too long to merge into Hadrosaurid. Ecphora (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see I used the word "article" confusingly to refer to the Wikipedia article and the journal article; but I think my point got through, the journal article may not be notable, but a Wikipedia article on the general topic would be. Ecphora (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to quick point out I don't think a merge is the appropriate action because this study itself (not just the paper, the whole study) meets notability standards (verifiable, legitimate sources, etc.). If it didn't, a merge into a feeding article would be appropriate because the study couldn't sustain it's own article. But in this case, I feel it does. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't split up the discussion in multiple places. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I was trying to avoid responding point-by-point because I thought it was unfair, but that seems to be the direction we've headed, so I've copy and pasted my exact statement to Mgiganteus1 below:
Hey mgiganteus1. I wanted to respond to your comment about the notability of 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study here, since I said on the AFD that I didn't want to get into a point-counterpoint thing there, as I don't think it's really fair. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be difficult; I think AFD (and all Wikipedia) should involve a healthy debate between intelligent people, not just fighting. Anyway, I agree that you're right about the difference between verifiability and notability, but I think at least a passing review at the General Notability Guideline indicates that it passes. 1) Significant coverage. It has received significant coverage, not only in the press but in other sources. (Heck, the journal article itself indicates this, as this article is more about the study than just the article.) 2) Reliable I don't think anyone is questioning that. 3) Sources The sources are secondary and reliable, and there are multiple ones. 4) Independent of the subject I've deliberately not cited the actual article as it is not independent, but there is still no shortage of sources. And of course, #5 is Presumed, which is the one we're debating now at AFD. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this wikipedia article is on a subject that is notable both for the methods used in the study and the topic of the study. If one day there are hundreds of such articles, that could only be of benefit.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is absurd. I for one am not going to be responsible for hundreds of useless wiki articles that could be summed up in to one, or even a paragraph. This study isn't On the Origin of Species which changed many people thinking about Life. A few months back a study came out saying that based on energy expenditure of sauropod necks that they would probably hold ther necks horrizontal. It got a lot of media attention. A few weeks later another study on sauropod necks comes out saying that sauropods probably habitually held there necks errect because thats what most modern day animals do. It got even more media exposure, the authors wrote 10 blog posts and have entire page dedicated to the press coverage of the paper. Neither of these studies deserve an entire wiki article and on their own are not notable. Both studes say the exact opposite and to write a wiki artile from the POV of one of them is misleading. Any one study is not special, this is not how sciecne works.
  • Either delete the article and move some of the content elsewere or do a major rewrite and change and remove the POV so it becomes and article about the genral debate over hadrosaur feeding and chewing as per mgiganteus1 and Ecphora (talk). Also I don't like the fact that all of the sources are media reports. Those are Not reliable sources for science stories. The media nearly always screw them up, miss the point, reinterpret them in their own special way. This is exactly what the media do, they treat every new study as if it's the current thinking for science and it's hugly important, ignoring every study that has come before. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about what is acceptable source by wiki standards it's about the accuracy of those sources. In any science article it doesn't make sence to use anything other and primary or good secondary sources. Ultimately what matters is what the researchers publish and what other researchers publish and not what the media interprets or in some case fabricate.(I'm not implying that the reporting of this particular study is inaccurate, to be honest I havn't read the media reports on this study.) For the record I currently have no problem with keeping the article only if it's is renamed and rewritten to include the entire debate on hadrosaur feeding and diet. If this doesn't happen then it should be deleted. By the way I really apreachiate the time and effort you put into this article and I hope that you'll help out with other paleo articles in the future. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to hadrosaurid feeding in the hope that will encourage restructuring and broadening to eventually become an impartial review of the research in this field rather than giving undue weight to the methods, results and conclusions of this single study. Qwfp (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of this study appears to be established by reliable and secondary sources, am I missing something? We have articles on studies, journals, books, collections, single experiments and any other thing editors care to write, editors once thought to bring them here for discussion. I understand the surprise they may cause, but we can have articles on papers because we are not paper. If someone wants to use secondary sources to write an article about a single study of an extinct genus, or family, I don't see the issue. This content should not be merged or moved to any of the suggestions above, that is when problems of POV would emerge. If the reason for deletion is no longer lack of notability (or "undue weight"), is it now the period of time since the results were published? cygnis insignis 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noting Hunter, Abyssal, Toddy1, and the keep/merge reasons, but using the Abyssal solution: keep this, create new. As a recent publication, the content would only present difficulties when merged. cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet, or rename to Hadrosaur diet. The distinction is: the diet of the hardrosaur is notable because of the paper. The paper itself isn't. Sceptre (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steveoc and merge the info as suggested above. I appreciate the effort put into the article, but a precedent has to be set. As a new study the article smacks of undue weight, and there has not been sufficient time for the scientific community to weigh in with their opinions on what is currently the theory of one research group. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Qwfp. It really wouldn't work out within Hadrosaur at this time, because it would overwhelm the current article. However, it could make a really useful part of a dedicated paleobiological article. Hadrosaur feeding is a complex topic that has undergone numerous revisions since the late 1800s, starting with Edward Drinker Cope's interpretation of an Anatotitan to show that hadrosaurids were water-plant gummers, to the discovery of "mummies" that included fragments of plants in their guts, and following to several landmark studies of hadrosaurs (Lull and Wright 1942, Ostrom 1964, Weishampel 1984) and the summation in Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies, to the present, where we've got studies from the back end of the dinosaurs (Karen Chin on probable Maiasaura coprolites with evidence for feeding on rotted wood), from the middle of the dinosaurs (Tweet et al on Brachylophosaurus), to the business end (computer modeling saying the upper jaws were immobile, and now this microwear study saying that they were). If no one minds the esoteric nature of the subject, that's more than enough for a featured article.
Having said that, there is something that made be a big issue with the article as it stands currently, and that is the news sources. I noticed in the discussion of the Tweet et al work that a 2009 MSNBC article reported the brachylophosaur as having a variety of stuff in its guts, when the research paper reported the opposite: a homogeneous mass of millimeter-scale leaf fragments. The 2008 MSNBC report also cited did not make this mistake, though. Apparently the more recent article included the pollen information with the leaf information, or accidentally used the information from a different specimen. It's not something that Hunter Kahn got wrong, but the MSNBC source itself, and I worry about other inaccuracies. I haven't gotten a chance to see this new research article, yet, but once I do I'll be happy to check this through. J. Spencer (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(plus to above): I'm not in favor of articles for individual papers at this time, unless they are of great import (which can usually only be realized in hindsight). The problem I see is that the information will get fragmented and each study will become an island unto itself. I'm in favor of a wider framework to bring individual studies into some kind of context. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of articles that establish "some kind of context," but there's no reason we can't create an article about hadrosaur diet in general and keep this article about a particular study relevant to the subject. Abyssal (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's arguing that it should be deleted because there's nothing similar to it; several people are arguing that it should be merged because it gives undue weight to one very recent paper, out of many thousands on extinct animals. There's no evidence that this paper, out of so many, deserves this special attention. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I want to point out my strong belief that this article isn't only about one paper but about the entire scope of the study. The findings, the method, the publication, the comparison to other cases, the ramifications, the confirmation of previous theories, etc etc. — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every paper has a study behind it. There are currently 1247 named dinosaurs, each one with a paper describing it, most with subsequent papers studying them. We're talking easily 10,000 papers/studies. What makes this one stand out? What makes this one special? The fact that it was picked up by the press? That happens every few weeks. The press reports aren't even very accurate, as J. mentioned above. WP:DINO has long had an informal policy that articles based on popular press pieces were not a great idea because the reporters writing them don't know what they're writing about, and that articles should be based instead on peer-reviewed papers. Perhaps it's time to set that policy in stone. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the fact that the press covers something count for nothing though? Whether they do accurately or inaccurately (in any case, not specifically this), press coverage increases interest/attention from the general public, the subject is highlighted (it may seem unusual to those who deal with the topic every day but that's up to what captures the imagination of the press), more sources are available and the subject becomes more memorable by more people (particularly those who are not experts on the topic) than those which are not picked up by the press... --candle•wicke 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the recent papers on new genera are being picked up by the press now. I fear this will condemn us to the hell of having to make an article for each new taxon and the paper announcing each new taxon. That is insane. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's great that the Wikiproject is so active and have no doubt you guys are improving this encyclopedia every day. Even so, I find the argument that we shouldn't condone an article because it might lead to more articles troubling. The idea that it will become slightly more difficult to maintain a larger number of articles strikes me as a terrible argument for not including worthy works on Wikipedia. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your article is really great. And it should be included somewhere. As part of a larger article on hadrosaur studies, for example, where it can be balanced by other papers. But keeping this as-is will open a can of worms ("this paper is standalone, so why can't we have more like it?"). People are always coming up with brilliant ideas, like rating each WP:DINO article on a quality scale, or adding placeholder images to dozens of articles, etc. The regular project members say "This is a bad idea, it can't be supported, it's not going to be maintained." but it's done anyway. The result is we end up having to clean up after abandoned projects that were supposed to "improve" the content. I've seen it a dozen times, and I'm not the only one who has this reservation. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree to disagree with you on this, but I'd like to add one thing: I don't think it will open a can of worms. First of all, I think you're giving me too much credit that I would start some sort of trend. :D But more substantially, anyone who tried to say "this paper is standalone, so why not more like it?" would be violating Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If there were other study articles that pop up (which I still think would be a good thing), they'd have to prove notability and meet Wikipedia standards on their own... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I really don't want this to drag on, you have to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of science papers that exist. Why is this one paper on Hadrosaur chewing even remotely notable enough to have an entire article written about it. I'd say that J. Spencer is the most qualified person currently on wikipdia to handle this but I dont expect him to go out of his way to deal with this article. The article as it stand is ignoring 100 years of debate on this topic and focusing on just one study that got a little bit of media attention. What about other papers on hadrosaur chewing. Would you seriously expect to have 50 articles each with relatively unimportant sections, like the publication, and many of these wiki articles saying the same things over and over, each one compering each paper to every other paper. All we need is one artile covering this topic. I'd be happy if this got a major rewrite, but as it stands it can't stay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please address some of the points made above, this isn't as simple as just sources or no sources. It's about notability, usfullness and undue weight. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, notability as we define it here is purely based on sources, although judging the sources is subjective. In my opinion, the sources are sufficient to establish notability. That's pretty much the end of this AfD. It's notable, and merging or renaming or whatever is an editorial decision to be made later. Usefullness is subjective, and I don't have a lot of use for dino info myself, but it's fine for a paperless encyclopedia. Enough people care: as shown by the sources. - Whoops, gotta go. I'll try and address UNDUE later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
UNDUE is about imbalancing articles, compared to what secondary and tertiary sources say about the subject. It's not about wikipedia as a whole having too much coverage of a particular subject. So UNDUE does not apply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources included even name the paper involved in the study; the study could be included as part of a larger article on hadrosaurs, but the secondary sources don't establish the notability of the current subject if they don't even note the title of the paper which reports the findings of the study. The articles included in Category:Journal articles have references which mention the article's title; this doesn't. Notability hasn't been established. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm repeating myself, but this article is about the study, not just the paper. Additionally, there are in fact sources that that include the name of the paper (here), not that I find that argument particularly relevant anyway; it's obvious the subject of the articles is this study, and they don't mention the paper by name because it's a mouthful for readers. As for notability, secondary sources like these have long been established as acceptable for establishing notability. I still haven't heard any real argument as to why this article doesn't meet notability standards. I've heard people say they don't think a journal article merits its own Wikipedia entry, or that they are worried about an unflux of similar articles that will be difficult to maintain, all of which strikes me as a bit too WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But if you look at the general notability guidelines (which includes general coverage, reliable, sources, independent of the subject) it seems to me to fit the bill. — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we would expect a source providing notability for a person to include basic information like the person's name, it seems to me we should expect the same for a paper. You may not feel that's a "real" argument, but I don't agree. You link to IDONTLIKEIT, but I've already stated I like the article. But it is not balanced, doesn't provide for a WP:NPOV discussion of hadrosaur chewing (because it's only about the one study, and thus can't address other studies), and thus gives undue weight to its subject. A broader, merged article would give some balance where it's needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Hunter Kahn. The sources are all specifically about the study and the paper. Each of them mentions the journal and the researchers by name. For example, PlanetEarth Online article says "Purnell, along with graduate student Vince Williams and Dr Paul Barrett from the Natural History Museum, found an overlooked piece of evidence: tiny scratches on the dinosaur's teeth ... The results, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ..."; MSNBC says "The researchers behind the study, published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Purnell and his colleagues ..."; LIveScience says "The results, which are published online this week in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... paleontologist Mark Purnell of the University of Leicester in England and his colleagues ...". Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources = notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. It's not about wikis standards on notability. It's about it's Scientific notability (untill other researchers have published opinions on this, it is no more notable than other studies), the style of the article and its undue weight (people are forgeting that!) to one study. Read Edmontosaurus, this is the style of a science article. Hunter's article is more like a news story. Just because a study gets some press coverage doesn't mean it needs an entire wiki article. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This sub-thread was started by Firsfron of Ronchester disagreeing with my statement "multiple secondary sources establish notability of subject", and I definitely (and obviously) meant Wikipedia's notability guideline when I wrote that. If you want to play with your own definition of notability, take it somewhere else! Gandalf61 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands currently, this article is not up to Wikipedia standards. Why not have hundreds of thousands of articles on other "noteworthy" journal articles. You might as well create an article that describes the three new Australian dinosaurs. This gives undue weight to one specific study. Even if it does incorporate other studies, however, it still focuses on this one study, and no other Wikipedia article is like this. This isn't about notability so much as undue weight. If the article begins to encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding, then it would be equal and fair, and not focus only on one specific study. Why not have articles on the other two dozen journal articles that describe hadrosaurid feeding mechanisms? It simply doesn't make sense to do it that way. This should be renamed and encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding and the history of the study of it, not just one story that just happened to get media attention. That alone doesn't make it worthy as a stand-alone and it makes Wikipedia look like Wikinews, where this article (as it is) belongs. --Spotty 11222 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is a prime example of What about article x?, which is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying "There are not Wikipedia entries other journal articles, so this one should be deleted" isn't a valid point. And I suppose I should respond the undue weight argument. I obviously don't think it gives the study undue weight. It's pretty clear in the context Wikipedia entry that this is a study, and thus comes with the same understandings and limits of any study. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that certain elements of the findings are still the subject for debate, specifically so I wouldn't give it undue weight... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet or rename to Hadrosaur diet, with a slight preference for the latter (are you getting all this down, closing admin?) due to its greater length than Hadrosaur. I wouldn't actually say that this has 'significant coverage' because the newspaper articles are not about the study itself but about its findings. To reuse an example from above: a newspaper article saying "The Origin of Species has had a huge impact on science" supports the notability of the book; one saying "Species change through natural selection, as reported in the Origin of Species" gives notability to natural selection but not to the book. I think the sources given here are more analogous to the latter than the former, and my feeling is that the quotes given above by Gandalf are at the level of "...as reported in the Origin of Species, which was written by Charles Darwin and used data about finches" but not at the level of "Charles Darwin wrote OOS using finch data and it was important".
But even if you disagree and think this does constitute significant coverage, I'd argue that this is a case for making an exception per the GNG which says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." Really, if the notability guidelines conclude that any scientific study is worth an article just because lots of science journalists have decided to cover it I think it indicates a weakness of the guidelines. And I do think Gandalf's interpretation of those quotes would conclude that - journalists put similar sentences in tons of articles about scientific studies.
All that said, it's a very nice article with a lot of information appropriate for the encyclopedia so merging or renaming it is preferable to deletion. We needn't even lose anything, since methodology of studies about Hadrosaur diet is perfectly appropriate for a Hadrosaur diet article. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thought about the idea of merging: Suppose we created a Hadrosaur diet article and merged this into it. If so, that diet article would have a whole lot of info on this study, and not much else. I would argue that the study would then be given undue weight, moreso than in its own seperate article, because the amount of information regarding the study would so severely outnumber the amount of information for any previous studies. (I believe this is what cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) might have been saying above, but I don't want to speak for him.) I think a Hadrosaur diet article would be a good idea, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Rather than merge this study into a diet article, I think the better method would be to start working on the diet article (which I'd be happy to do), get as many studies and viewpoints into it as we can, and then go back and determine whether this 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study has to go. (And even in that case, I'm not so sure it should be deleted. The overall diet article could have a brief amount of information on this study, and then if readers want to learn more about it, they can go to the main article specifically about the study. Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive...) — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that starting off the hadrosaur diet article now with a heavy weighting on this article but an expectation of broadening it in future is OK: I'd rather see an article that doesn't yet match its ideal, Wikipedia-as-a-finished-product scope than one which shouldn't exist in W-a-a-f-p; I think the former is easier to correct by cumulative additions from people thinking "why doesn't this talk about X?" than the latter. That's a personal view though, and I'm not sure if policy or consensus are with me. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Move to one of the articles proposed above. A study is not deserving of its own article except for extreme circumstances. Many thousands of peer-reviewed papers on studies are published every year, and maybe hundreds of these receive press coverage; however, this does not confer notability on the study, but rather the topic of the study. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue this article is on the topic of this specific study. But even putting that aside, can you tell me what notability standards this article doesn't match up to? — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing for deletion (few are), but there is WP:NTEMP: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Qwfp (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article already has some non-news article sources that indicate its more than just a short burst. The publication of the study, too, indicates it's more than that, although I deliberately didn't cite that as a source since I wanted to limit the sources to those independent of the subject... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to be obtuse, but which sources? I can't spot any references myself that are non-news sources, about this particular study, and independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Refs 8 & 9 aren't non news sources. I think more sources will be available in the near future. That's another thing to keep in mind, this article is still fairly new... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ref 8 is an abstract of a talk by Vince Williams, one of the study's co-authors, so not independent. Ref 9 is a ref for one of the previous studies mentioned in the "Comparison to other cases" section, so doesn't mention this study and therefore has no bearing on its notability. It does bear on the notability of "Hadrosaur(id) feeding / Hadrosaur diet" as a topic, and i'm arguing it would be better to have an article about the topic, not this particular study. Qwfp (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and rescope to something like Hadrosaur feeding, discussing not only the one journal article, but also using other WP:RS that discuss hadrosaur mastication and diet. LadyofShalott 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The study is already discussed at Hadrosaur#Diet, and any additional relevant material can be added there. If the section becomes unwieldy, a spin-out article (Hadrosaur diet or similar), making use of all research on the subject, can be created in accordance with WP:SPLIT. Articles such as this, treating individual recent studies as though they were the ne plus ultra of research, are a Bad Idea. Deor (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the bit that's at Hadrosaur, but kept it to a minimal. Putting a small amount of information about the study in Hadrosaur#Diet, then keeping the rest in a separate article, strikes me as far preferable to just plopping it all in the Hadrosaur article and letting it overwhelm that article... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Dietary habits of hadrosaurs, based on LadyofShalott, HunterKahn and Deor. The title is inappropriate, akin more to the July 2009 Urumqi riots. Rename and thus enlarge the scope of this article to the subject matter it discusses so well already. Shiva (Visnu) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:' Article is well sourced and well structured. The Flash {talk} 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the issues raised by Spotty11222, Firsfron of Ronchester, etc. This article while well written is is POV towards Hardosaur feeding methods. It should be renamed and expanded to reflect the fuller spectrum of research which has been made regarding this subject.--Kevmin (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. Wikipedia absolutely is not a place for an encyclopedia article about every journal article someone published. Whoop-de-doo: Two scientists spent a year studying something and wrote it up. Shall I write an encyclopedia article about each journal article I and associates published? I think not! Do you have any concept of how many journal articles equal to or better than this are published every year? Edison (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge The result is notable as oart ofwhat is known about the animal, not the particular study. The information goes in the main article, & is already in the one on the principal investigator. Individual scientific projects if less than major expeditions of very large scale multi-center studies are not notable for an encyclopedia--the knowledge of the subject that they gain is what's notable. There are many interesting results on many animal from the microscopic examination of dental wear, and the discussion goes with the subject studied. DGG (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Hadrosaur#Diet. No particular scientific publication deserves that long an article on its own. A Wikipedia article should be about the science and not the scientific publication (except when the publication itself is of historical interest). Ollivier (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just again note that I don't think people saying that a scientific study doesn't warrant it's own Wikipedia entry is a sufficient AFD argument. If there are verifible sources, and if general notability standards are met, that is the basis for whether it warrants an article, not a judgment from individual Wikipedia contributors as to whether something is articleworthy. (This is as per WP:UNENCYC, which states, "It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia." And per, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which states "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. ... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion."') — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of repetitive policy-quoting going on here. The point is that policies can not possibly list every subject which is non-notable. The simple fact remains that there are news sources which talk about a study of a subject. Does this confer notability to the study?
Let us take a similar, hypothetical situation. Astronomer John Doe studies the star Anonymous Prime and discovers evidence of a planetary system capable of supporting life. This study, and the paper announcing its results, are covered in major news outlets, and are talked about all over the world. This is a clear indication of notability. However, what would the article be on? 2009 Anonymous Prime planetary study? NO. It would be on Anonymous Prime, or Anonymous Prime planetary system.
Since the creator of this article quotes so many WP's, allow me to add my own: WP:Use common sense. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world, and to arrange it logically for ease of use and in a balanced way. If we had a separate article on all the studies of a subject, the same information, or even worse, contradictory information would be contained about a single subject in many different areas, against the basic spirit of Wikipedia.
Without saying that this would set a bad precedent, I will say it is a bad idea in this and almost every other case I can think of. Let's work together on that Hadrosaur diet article, shall we? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 07:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been waiting for someone to bring up WP:COMMON, as in my experience it's often the last resort after notability can't be disputed. ;) In seriousness though, you make a good point. However, I've always maintained that a Hadrosaur diet article can and should be made, but that Hadrosaur diet and 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study don't have to be mutually exclusive. There should be an overarching article about diets in general that include elements from lots of different studies or findings, and in the context of that article, this study should be discussed in a succinct way. But then if a reader wanted more information about that specific study, they could go to the main article about it. As you yourself said, Wikipedia is meant to "provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world". Using this approach, we're meeting that charge by providing as much knowledge to the reader as we can. As long as the article about the study is presented in the proper context (it's already clear in this article that it is a study, not definitive fact, and even indicates what areas are still subject to debate), and especially because the study is notable beyond just its findings (the methodology used is completely unique, the way the study was conducted can be used in future studies), then a stand-alone Wikipedia entry about the study as well as a larger Hadrosaur article is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but of course, WP:COMMON is the favorite policy of us deletionists. :-D -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for what it's worth, I just added a new source that puts a little more perspective on the relevance of this study. I expect more sources like this will be popping up over the next few weeks/months... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the coverage really makes it a news item and nota the subject for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment much as i would like to increase the coverage of science in Wikipedia , I do not think that news sources about a particular study make that particular study, as distinct form the underlying subject, notable. I would reserve the coverage of individual papers of this sort to those which are the subject of later historical discussions. The rationale is the same as NOIT NEWS--we're at the mercy of temporary interests and fads. Not that thissort of work is a fad, but it is one part of what is known about the general topic. Nobody is going to come looking for a topic like this: they would come looking for Hadrosaur, or possibly Hadrosaur diet, or the article(s) of the scientists involved. DGG (talk) 21:15, 11 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008–2009_hadrosaur_chewing_study&oldid=1142497492"