Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Spinosaurid

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 Spinosauridae. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Spinosaurid[edit]

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

No evidence that this fossil (or very small part of a fossil) is in any way notable. A single reference notes its discovery and the lack of interpretation that can be assigned to two vertebrae. If every fossil was notable then we would have tens of thousands of articles about them. We don't because they, like this one, are not notable. Fails WP:GNG. When and if it is assigned to a new genus or new specie, that would be the time to write the article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.Avg W (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say Merge to Spinosauridae~~, but distribution there includes Australia.~~Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Modified to merge per improved content and sourcing that added content which could be merged (beyond just the distribution in the lede currently present).Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae#Localities. While the lede of that article mentions fossils found in Australia, I am not finding mention of any Australian find in the body of the article (apologies if I missed one). 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/6/933 is the uncited main reference to the article. It's notable because it is the only Spinosaurid material found in Australia and confirms it's Spinosaurid presence on the continent. We have plenty of articles for fossils for undescribed species, like the Gurlin Tsav skull, so I don't see that as an obstacle. This guy is clearly enthusiastic and acting in good faith, as can be seen by their editing history, and simply mass nominating their first articles for deletion is churlish and discouraging to new users. This kind of stuff is one of the main reasons Wikipedia doesn't retain new users. Leniency should be applied in these scenarios.Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. The fact that it exists is certainly noteworthy enough to be included there, but there's simply not enough to say about it to justify its own article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. The discovery of a genus is notable and supported by three references and eventually might be able to be split off later when more sources cover this new genus. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 12:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. There are hundreds of indeterminate dinosaurs, I don't see why this one is especially notable, considering no informal name and fragmentary remains. I can see "Saltriosaurus" and "Nurosaurus" getting their own articles, but not this one. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:07, 15 April 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.