Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington theropod

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 delete. Flash! Found femur fragment fossil fails finalization! Film at eleffin!

PS, if somebody really wants to redirect this, I have no objection.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington theropod

[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)

Singular fossil fragment with no name, not even a nomen nudum. Singular fossils like this don't normally get articles and the similar article Australian Spinosaurid was merged into Spinosauridae on similar reasoning. Doesn't seem notable enough to merge into something such as theropod, though information from the study not mentioned in this article could be used for the Tyrannosauridae page.

Delete I'd say merge with Tyrannosauridae but the information contained in the article is, as you say, not notable for for inclusion there or in Theropod. Many discoveries on tyrannosaurids have been made over the years, being the first one in Washington doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the Tyrannosauridae page, especially if it is only a partial femur with nothing significantly distinct about it. Probably not notable enough even for the Timeline of tyrannosaur research article. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It seems that this is just barely not notable, considering the fact that it hasn't actually been identified (or described if it is a different species), and the news coverage around it was released practically the same day the paper was. Thus, since we don't really have enough information on it to really tell readers anything meaningful (except that it came from Washington, but this can be put in another article), this page should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 'Angloposeidon' has been around for ages and has never gotten Afd'd despite arguably being less notable than both the Washington state theropod (being the only dinosaur from the state) and the Australian Spinosaurid, for both Washington state theropod and Angloposeidon, given there indeterminate positions, there isn't really a place to easily redirect either article, particularly for the Washington state theropod as there is no formation article associated with it, given this, I think the article should be kept for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angloposeidon is a nomen nudum, and there's plenty of stub articles on those kept around; it has precedence. Fragmentary specimens with no names, contrarily, almost never get articles within Wikiproject Dinosaurs (with Joan Wiffen's theropod the only thing that comes to mind). Merge potential is something I mentioned above; it's not important enough to put the information in a different article anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's noteworthy enough to merge the info and the image into Tyrannosauroidea Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know that it's a member of Tyrannosauroidea. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz to quote the papers abstract (emphasis added) "If the femur pertains to a tyrannosauroid, which seems likely given its size and the widespread occurrence of the group across Laramidia during Late Cretaceous times, then it would represent an earlier occurrence of large body size than previously recognized (complete femur length estimated at 1.2 meters)". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to contest my statement, or support it? Because I think that it clearly supports my statement (again, we don't know for sure that it is a tyrannosauroid). I wouldn't be totally against its possible inclusion, as long as it is emphasized that we don't know for sure of its potential placement within the aforementioned clade. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindof both because yes we don't know for certain but also many things we don't know for certain and a "probably" works just as well for us as a "definitely". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as noteworthy for being the first confirmed dinosaur from Washington state and for the depositional environment information, rename to the Burke Museum number as done with other notable single specimen fossils--Kev min § 00:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all that I pottered around a bit originally to fix it up - the combination of unnnamed, unidentified, and fragmentary/unexceptional material makes this a bad candidate for an article, even if it is the first from the (geographically arbitrary) region. If a new genus or higher taxon comes of this, one could make a better case. (Another similar production [1] - just because it's a name without an article does not mean there needs to be an article.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest, as suggested below, would seem sensible, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Delete/Merge Notability not evidenced for a single bone fragment fossil, could be mentioned at Tyrannosauroidea but if not even a species can be ascertained or assigned I don't see notability and the singular location does not provide that. Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could also be merged into Washington (state) or History of Washington (state). - Station1 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:OR, and WP:HAMMER. It's just too soon; it's not even named. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your going to delete this then many other would have to do that same like the Joan Wiffen's theropod. Its ok due to the fact it is valid. And no we do not put it in the history of Washington.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there's very few articles like this, that's why it's being suggested we delete this one. It's also not a valid taxon, it's not a taxon at all, it's merely an intermediate fragment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg - why, for Heaven's sake, do you create something like North Carolina dromaeosaurid while this is going on? Exactly the same issues, to a T. I put it up for deletion as well. Sheesh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if that image is free for use, I'll eat my hat. For the how many-th time? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I think this article should be gone either way the content should move to Tyrannosauroidea probably but I see no reason why a redirect would be left as nothing should link here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if it is a tyrannosaur also not much place for a redreict and the article should stay and to debunk elmide point of North Carolina dromaeosaurid I think i creted that just before I came to know about this. --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The single paper suggests it could be a tyrannosaur so that is enough to mention it in the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the first dinosaur fossil from Washington state and on the basis of the article in an academic journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another good merging candidate to sidestep the uncertain classification of the specimen would be a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest. It's certainly of some sort of relevance that it's the first dinosaur fossil from the state, but not to the point of its own article. This is a page where it could fit in without seeming out of place or irrelevant. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I think that if a merge is decided, then this is the article we should merge it to. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment The main reason for people voting to keep is that the article is "notable", but it is not notable enough. A single fossil that has been published is not notable even if it is the only from a place. Otherwise we would have articles for individual teeth from Scotland, other states, a single bone here or there, etc, that have no purpose being here on Wikipedia. A single paper does not even make this bone notable in the larger scale, what can be discussed here (location and taxonomy) is just as easily placed on the article about its taxonomy, where only the location is then notable. Perhaps it was wrong to bring this to AFD, instead a RFC or merge discussion would have been better. This article clearly goes against guidelines for the WikiProject it falls under and if the verdict here is a default keep due to no consensus I believe we will end up back here again rather soon to get a consensus, in one form of discussion or another. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

final verdict?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a very relevant discussion going on over at WT:DINO for anyone here who happens to not frequent the relevant WikiProject talk. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Especially being mindful to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments above, there's nothing here or at the article that would pass pass WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES or GNG. One can talk about due weight at other articles for mention, but I don't see any need to decided on a merge or redirect here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, love these sorts of afds, article less then 100 words (including references), afd over 1600 words:)), anyhow this seems to have made quite a media splash back in 2015 with articles in NBC News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Time (magazine), KUOW-FM, The Seattle Times to list but a few, but is there anything else after that? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2018 (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.