Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Furileusaurus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Furileusaurus[edit]

Related articles with similar issues:

Draft:Necromax

Draft:Eodionaea

Draft:Elcolme Formation

Draft:Spino C

Draft:Thelodon

Draft:Banglocephale

I came across User:Deltasaurus with their edits on the Chilesaurus page: [1] In this edit, they have added a {{protected}} template by their own volition, and changed the {{speciesbox}} template (which is the standard for dinosaur articles) into a manual {{taxobox}} template, adding a family "Chilesauridae" that has never been named.

I digress. Looking through this user's other contributions, I quickly came across a number of other spurious contributions. Notable are a number of drafts which appear to describe dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals, which actually do not exist judging by the literature.

Due diligence:

Furileusaurus. This appears to be the editor's invention of a type genus for the clade Furileusauria, named by Filippi et al. (2016) to include abelisaurid dinosaurs such as Carnotaurus. A Google Scholar search indicates that it does not exist, but a reference - Filippi & Barsbold (2016) - is cited. The misspelling in the title "Worlds [sic] largest omnivorus [sic] dinosaur" is certainly suggestive. The DOI links to a completely unrelated article, Therrien & Henderson (2007). The reference claims that the article is in volume 80, issue 5, pages 198–203 of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, but the latest volume of that journal is volume 37.

Thelodon. Derived from Thelodonti, again trying to establish a type genus. The second sentence makes no sense ("There is much debate over whether the group of Palaeozoic fish known as the Thelodon represent a monophyletic grouping"), being a direct copy of the same in the Thelodonti article with "Thelodonti" replaced by "Thelodon". Google Scholar returns nothing useful, either giving the insect Thelodon or a partial match of "Thelodonti" or "Thelodontida". Needless to say, the type species Thelodon huabeijannis gives nothing either, nor do T. micra and T. yunnanis. Furthermore, there is no 1878 paper by a B. Cole-Jane. The image does not depict anything labelled as belonging to the genus Thelodon. Finally Thelodon heintzae is linked in the caption to Furacauda heintzae, an apparent act of idiosyncratic taxonomic revisionism.

Necromax. This page claims that the genus is a dinosaur (doesn't specify which sub-clade!) named by Rucha Ingavat and Pascal Tassy in 1997, with four species. A Google Scholar search only returns a researcher's email address. No reference is cited. Ingavat and Tassy are extinct mammal researchers, who this editor is apparently obsessed with (see Draft:Ingavat and Tassy). A look through the publications of both authors indicates that they did not publish any papers on Cretaceous dinosaurs from Argentina. There are also no records of dinosaurs known from Qatar reported in the literature in 2016. Finally, the pictures depict two unrelated rays - the Eocene Heliobatis radians and a living specimen of Dasyatis pastinaca, both of which are neither dinosaurs nor Cretaceous.

Eodionaea. Google Scholar returns no reasonable results for either Eodionaea or "first venus flytrap"; for the latter, no matches for either appear in the returned reference Johnson (1939). Again Ingavat and Tassy are credited with the name, and neither author published in fossil plants in 2006 (the latter search returns a C. Tassy, no relation). Out of the two cited refs, one is not really a ref at all ("Ingavat & Tassy have done it again; a carnivourus plant we now call Eodionaea mertis"), and the second reference is supposedly titled "Fossil Dionaea" but actually links to "Fossil Aldrovanda", containing no references to Eodionaea, albeit authored by DeGreef (1997). What is, to my knowledge, the most authoritative record on Hell Creek plants, Johnson (2002), does not record any Venus flytraps.

Eocolme Formation. It does not exist according to Google Scholar. Neither does the Pangri Formation, which it supposedly underlies, nor does the Semitacole Beds, which it supposedly overlies. Chowdhury et al. (1997) give no record of Cretaceous-aged rocks on St. Martin's Island in Bangladesh, where the formation is supposedly located.

Bangocephale. Directly related to the previous. No Google Scholar results again. "Description" mentions that it was "a large pachycephalosaur growing up to 7 meters", contradicted immediately by "scientists say it was probably 8 meters"; this is implausible given the small size of most other pachycephalosaurs (after Paul (2016), p. 267-270). "Habitat" proceeds to admit the article's spurious nature: "It is the only dinosaur from Bangladesh. Which is kind of strange because Bangladesh is a new landscape coming out of the sea only 4 mya." This is contradicted by "Scientists think [St. Martin's Island] was connected to India during the Cretaceous period." If there are no Cretaceous-aged rocks on the island (see above), this cannot be true.

Spino C. This is completely incorrect binomial nomenclature. The page is attempting to give a name to the specimen FSAC-KK 11888, designated as the neotype of Spinosaurus by Ibrahim et al. (2014). That paper notes a specimen known as "Spinosaurus B", and treat it as representing the same animal as FSAC-KK 11888, but "Spino C" or "Spinosaurus C" are not actual specimens (the former matches some names, the latter matches a table in Amiot et al. (2006) that was parsed incorrectly). At least part of the article is copied from Spinosaurus#Specimens (the list, for instance).

I think all drafts created by this user should be monitored, and, if they fail a basic source check, deleted on sight. Thanks for reading this rant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate Draft:Ingavat and Tassy too. It's filled with inanity, oddly specific personal details, and a list of books that most likely do not exist. Ingavat and Tassy also probably, if they meet notability, deserve separate pages. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as hoaxes Furileusaurus is certainly a made up thing, only appearing on user contribution sites. No one ever has written about "Eodionaea", "Eocolme Formation" or "Bangocephale" online. "Necromax" is used as a handle online, but not a dinosaur. Thelodon is an insect and not a fish. So all the listed items can be deleted. However some of the other drafts are real. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on that last note. Spinosaurus maroccanus and Angaturama are legitimate (but do not necessarily deserve their own articles). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irritatoridae is a synonym of Spinosauridae so all we need is a redirect and/or a merge for that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same user has created non-draft articles Shaanxiscolex, Kinesuchus, and Ieldraan. They may be real, though, per [2], [3], and [4], respectively. However, the same editor also created articles Noelle 2 and 2041 in film (which listed only Noelle 2), which I flagged for deletion as hoaxes, so their choice of draft space versus article space doesn't correspond to invented versus real. Largoplazo (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the three created articles is also largely legitimate. However, oddly, in the midst of this "productivity", the user has uploaded an image of Suchomimus to Commons as the fake taxon "Lanternsaurus". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, FYI: a source check on Ieldraan revealed that the Phylogeny section was completely illegitimate, and consisted of original research supported by a nonexistent reference. This is the same problem as the drafts I originally nominated for deletion. This editor is an ambiguous and suspect mixed bag, and their contributions should be treated with circumspection and diligence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I last wrote, he has created more articles and drafts, including Draft:Polydraspis, about a taxon not found by Google or Google Scholar. His works are consistently characterized by illustrations and photographs that are not related to the subjects of the articles, as in the case of the illustration of Metaspriggina in the aforementioned draft. I'm trying to figure out the most expeditious way to request intervention. Largoplazo (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ammarpad has already raised this editor's contributions at WP:ANI. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.