Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur)

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 no consensus. While the delete voters have a fairly convincing argument that WP:NOTNEWS could reasonably apply to this article, I don't feel that there is quite strong enough consensus to outright delete the article. There does appear to be quite a bit of interest in potentially merging this article elsewhere, or even to creating a new article devoted to dinosaur specimens that have been sold at public auction. My suggestion would be to start a merge discussion on the article's talk page to see if consensus can be found there. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big John (dinosaur)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Big John (dinosaur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, there's nothing to say about this skeleton other than the price, might be worth a brief sentence somehwhere, but doesn't justify an article. Dinosaurs are sold at auction with some regularity, and there is not really anything that makes this specimen different from any others that are sold for record breaking prices. The pre-auction coverage does not make clear that this specimen is any more notable than any other triceratops skeleton.Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, There are numerous Triceratops skeletons out there, see List_of_dinosaur_specimens_with_nicknames#Chasmosaurines, I think an entry there and possibly a brief sentence in the Triceratops article is appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Article Rescue Squadron is essentially organised canvassing for inclusionists, which explains the sloppy reasoning of the keep votes so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "sloppy reasoning" here. Your deletion nomination was based on a policy that applies to people and events, not objects. There are multiple articles from months before the auction. NemesisAT (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that a list of auctioned dinosaur fossils has been created, I think a merge is more appropiate. Super Ψ Dro 21:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Agreed with Reywas92 and Susmuffin. This skeleton is, currently, notable for one event (being sold for a lot of money) and being claimed to be the biggest specimen of the taxon (which, by definition, such a specimen must exist for every taxon). Triceratops is a very well-known dinosaur; there are surely dozens of specimens that are equally notable to this one, if not more so. I consider myself to be pretty strongly inclusionist, too, so believe me when I say I think this is not notable. A couple sentences on the Triceratops article, at most, and inclusion on "list of dinosaur specimens with nicknames", is all that's really justified. Perhaps there could be an article along the lines of "private trade in dinosaur fossils"—I don't think such an article exists, I could be wrong—which this specimen might merit one or two sentences on. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am working on the article at the moment. Meahwhile, the subject meets WP:GNG with international coverage like BBC. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What notable information about this specimen is there that cannot be covered in one or two sentences in the Triceratops article? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am limiting my interactions in AfD so I will just come here to say the if we treated this like a BLP - there are already three notable events in Bog John's history: discovery, size and sale. Meets ANYBIIO and GNG. We have articles for notable dinosaurs Black Beauty (dinosaur), Dippy, Jane (dinosaur), Peck's Rex, Sue (dinosaur), Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, Stan (dinosaur), Timeline of tyrannosaur research, Trix (dinosaur), Sue (dinosaur). I know this is "otherstuff" but it gives precedence. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery is inherent to every dinosaur specimen, and is equivalent to treating "birth" as a notable event in a BLP. Likewise, inherently every dinosaur has to have a largest known specimen, so that isn't sufficient either. You'll note that a large portion of the articles you just linked are actually sections of a single article, and all of those are on specimens significantly more notable than this one. This specimen has two things notable about it: it was claimed to be the largest specimen of the species ever, probably by the same person who was trying to sell it, and it sold for a lot of money. It has never been scientifically studied, and because it's probably going to be collecting dust in some anonymous person's mansion for the foreseeable future, it may never be. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Triceratops specimens of comparable or better completeness to this one, and many of those have actually informed scientific hypotheses, been viewed by thousands in public museums, or otherwise had a larger impact on the world than this one. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded the article and found plenty of significant coverage, both before and after the auction. A notable specimen of one of the most well-known dinosaur taxa. Ackatsis (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And all of these sources are surrounding the sale, massive failing WP:SUSTAINED. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded some more. Non-English sources go back to January, while the skeleton was still being assembled. Ackatsis (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every article on this specimen can be summarized as either "Triceratops skeleton to be sold at auction" or "Triceratops skeleton was sold at auction." Now that the skeleton has been auctioned off, there's no reason to think it will ever be relevant again. We're still dealing with something that's pretty much only notable for being sold for a lot of money. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another thing: Wikipedia guidelines indicate that being accredited by Guinness World Records is insufficient to establish notability (see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), so the claim that this is the largest Triceratops specimen does not establish notability, as it comes from Guinness World Records and not a reliable source. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked does not say Guinness World Records is unreliable, it says there is no consensus as to its reliability. I feel it is notable because of the WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple reliable sources. NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That so-called sustained coverage is still all about a single event, the auction. Sure, the articles contain some details about the discovery and preparation of the fossil too, but every fossil has to be discovered and prepared—this specimen is nothing special in that regard. Those facts are only relevant if notability is established from other sources. As it is, this specimen is notable for one event (being auctioned) and a single fact claimed by a source of dubious reliability (its size). Neither of these facts are particularly remarkable; many dinosaur fossils have been auctioned off and many dinosaur fossils have been claimed to be the largest individual of their species. What other notable things are there about the specimen? Ornithopsis (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specimen doesn't have to be special to be notable, it merely has to be covered in multiple reliable sources, which it is. I'm sorry, I disagree with the "not notable because it is a single event" line of thinking, as the sources cover the skeleton itself in detail, not just the event of its auction, and thus I feel the object itself is notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limitation to what we can write about. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't paper, but it doesn't have to cover WP:EVERYTHING either. Reliable sources are necessary to establish notability, but do not conclusively prove it; moreover, something being notable does not mean it needs a dedicated article. There are countless dinosaur specimens that have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (mostly in scientific papers). Many of them have more sustained coverage and have more noteworthy attributes than this specimen. In practice, there has been thus far a general consensus that such individual dinosaur specimens are best covered on the article for the taxon, rather than receiving standalone articles, other than in exceptional cases. I don't see what actually important information there is to report about this specimen that isn't adequately covered by adding these two sentences to Triceratops: "Guinness World Records recognized a specimen nicknamed Big John, with a skull 2.62 meters long, as the largest known Triceratops fossil," and "A Triceratops specimen nicknamed Big John was sold at an auction for €6.6 million on 21 October 2021." Ornithopsis (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The non-English sources predate the auction by up to 8 months and are solely dedicated to the skeleton's assembly and exhibition, indicating that the fossil was in the media even before its record-breaking very expensive price gave it global coverage. Ackatsis (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the essential noteworthy facts about this specimen are the following: the specimen was brought to Trieste to be prepared, which is reported in some local news sources. A few months later, there was a local event dedicated to the specimen, which was reported in some local news as well. A couple months after that, the specimen was auctioned off to a private buyer for a lot of money. Guinness World Records has reported that this is the largest known Triceratops specimen. Due to the specimen being sold to a private buyer, it is very possible that this specimen will never recieve any significant attention again. As noted above, Wikipedia policy is that Guinness World Records does not establish notability. So what we have is: one local event, organized by the people trying to sell the object, followed by the object being sold at an auction. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP answers those questions. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not pursuaded that this has met the criteria for WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor am I persuaded that any of the events this specimen is associated with are adequate to establish notability.Ornithopsis (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like there's enough sustained coverage of this to make it notable. Since it seems to be over multiple months. Although, I could see where people could make a similar case in the opposite direction. I guess it really depends on where your line for "sustained coverage" is. Unfortunately the guidelines don't give a hardline answer to that and January to October seems like enough passage of time for me. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited above. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion and sources, and the recent article expansion and 'save'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that nobody has yet addressed my concern that all of the important information about this specimen (i.e. size and sale) could simply go on the Triceratops article. Even if this specimen is notable enough (which I'm still not convinced of), that doesn't automatically mean it needs its own article. I also reiterate that the established precedent is for specimens to not get their own articles, except in remarkable cases—note that "Jane" the Tyrannosaurus, which is a far more significant and broadly-covered specimen, forms a section of the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article is far too wordy and should be split into separate articles. The Triceratops is also quite lengthy and I don't think it would benefit from additional content merged into it. NemesisAT (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only think around two or three sentences would be necessary to get the main points across in the Triceratops article, so it would not significantly contribute to length. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • We evidently disagree fundamentally on what Wikipedia should contain. However, I think you're at odds with the first sentence of Wikipedia:About which reads "create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Why remove information, currently easily found under its own title, and stuff little bits of it into an already lengthy article? NemesisAT (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, I'm an inclusionist too; it's rare for me to strongly disagree with something having its own article; I've put work into saving articles from AfD in the past so I get where you're coming from. The thing is, there's an established precedent for how individual dinosaur specimens are handled, and having a separate article for this violates that precedent. Moreover, I think you're underestimating the extent to which this is "business as usual" for a dinosaur specimen. It's not uncommon for a museum putting a dinosaur on display to get into local news, and it's not uncommon for people marketing a fossil for sale to make some claim or other about how unique it is. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:SUSTAINED, per the arguments above. I also believe it is problematic to sustain an article on a fossil specimen without references to the scientific literature (not a problem in the case of well-studied specimens such as Sue (dinosaur)) and given that Big John was sold it seems such sources will never exist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the articles on Facebook. They're fun. But there's nothing there that suggests this shouldn't be done in the main article, in a sentence or two, as Ornithopsis suggested. NOTNEWS applies, and it might stop us from trivializing everything--articles like these with their overwhelming (and ephemeral) pop-culture trivial character do not add anything to the project. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the largest known Triceratops skeleton" makes the stand-alone page notable and encyclopedic. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources labelling the skeleton as the "Largest ever" were not independent and impartial, given that they were trying to hype up the fossil for auction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hemiauchenia: That is not accurate. Every auction house must stand behind their descriptions. Or they must take the item back, and lose the entirety of their reputation. Who would ever buy from them again? Additionally the buyer has likely done his diligence before ponying up 7m. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randy Kryn, by that logic the largest specimen of any kind of animal would be notable, but why stop there? What about the second-largest, or the smallest? The pinkest? Drmies (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pink dinosaurs go, you may have a point, but for better or worse only a few dinosaur species stand out in human culture and collective memory as "the chosen ones", and triceratops is one of those. So the largest known triceratops also has become a noted specimen with a human nickname, a good backstory, and a long and impressive list of reputable sources vouching for it, a combination which seems to myself and others to edge it over the line, according to the accepted criteria, of deserving to keep its separate Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of dinosaur specimens have human nicknames, that does not mean that they are notable. "Good backstory" is very subjective and I don't think it holds true at all in this case (it was found and sold??). The fact remains that there is no academic sources discussing this specimen, and there likely never will be because it's being sold, which means that (as others have pointed out) pretty much everything that's said about the specimen itself has to be taken with a grain of salt. Noteworthy individual dinosaur specimens are specimens that have had a lot of research done to them and a lot written about them - see Stan (dinosaur) and Sue (dinosaur) - not a specimen that's in the news for a few months, has 0 academic sources discussing it and sole claim to fame is that it (in an unverified manner) is claimed to be the biggest one of a particular species. Keeping this article would be ignoring general Wikipedia practice and ignoring the consistency of the Paleontology articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded and casting my delete vote. (see below) There is nothing notable about this specimen other than unpublished, unverifiable claims of size. If anything, the MDD specimens (edit: I see they have an article already) would be more interesting. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, as I have already noted above, Guinness World Records giving a record to someone is explicitly said not to be sufficient to establish notability here. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "unpublished, unverifiable claims of size" are published in the BBC, The Guardian, CNN, and The Independent which are all considered "generally reliable". NemesisAT (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian, these claims are by "Iacopo Briano, a palaeontologist who oversaw the reconstitution of Big John". Iacopo Briano isn't even really a paleontologist, he's never published any academic literature on paleontology, and is probably better described as some kind of consultant. AP describes him as a "fossil sales expert", which sounds about right. These claims are made by the people trying to sell the fossil, and therefore are self-serving. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are considered inferior to academic publications based on common practice for paleontology articles, where WP:SCIDEF (based on WP:MEDPOP) is followed. The skull is most likely heavily reconstructed and the methodology for estimating its full size is unreported and thus unreliable. There is no evidence that the authors of the news articles have relevant subject matter expertise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable "in its areas of expertise". BBC, etc. cannot be expected to be experts on the finer details of dinosaur anatomy, such as the exact size estimates of particular dinosaur specimens. They're just repeating what they've heard, which comes from the questionable sources of Guinness World Records and the fossil dealer. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they are all reliable, significant, and independent coverage so regardless of how you feel about the "largest ever" claims, they still count towards (and in my view establish) notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant to this dissusion that there is no academic source for the size claim; size estimates for dinosaur specimens are often revised in the academic literature and the specimen in question here not being available for study of course hinders proper examination. I am also questioning how "largest ever" in any way contributes to the specimen's notability as the focus of an article. There are fossil specimens of every single dinosaur that are the largest ever found of that dinosaur. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that these claims are unreliable is also relevant because, as pointed out multiple times, the coverage of the specimen is based primarily on these claims, and all parties who commented on it for the news publications linked above are associated with the sale of the specimen in some way. I believe the relevant policy violated is WP:SPIP. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:SPIP, I trust that both the BBC and The Guardian would disclose if they were connected to the subject or running a paid promotion. Both articles are mostly original content and thus I think it is clear both of these articles do not violate this policy which reads The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. The authors of both articles are independent and have published non-trivial works that focus on the subject. NemesisAT (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What was notable was the record-breaking sale price, not the specimen itself. Are you suggesting that we create an article for the copy of Super Mario 64 that sold for 1.56 million dollars a few months ago? I could find equal sourcing for that, but I am fairly sure that nobody is arguing to create an individual article for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it, sure. However, I doubt an article about the sale of a sealed copy of a mass-manufactured product would be as interesting as an article on the discovery, excavation, assembly, and sale of a dinosaur skeleton over six years. NemesisAT (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the current article isn't very interesting either, it merely repeats WP:RUNOFTHEMILL details about location, date of discovery, completeness, etc. The only really notable thing is the sale price, which can be easily covered in the Triceratops article in two sentences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of "unverifiable claims" of size.
They appear in multiple WP:RS. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth.
That you disagree with the sources does not make them dematerialize. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right 13...auction houses do not lie. I have purchased items at auction, they are independently verified. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what about NPOV? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is staggering to me that none of the keep-voters see the inherent issue with keeping an article on a fossil specimen that has not been, and likely never will be, studied properly by scientists. It is not uncommon for the news media to be wrong about size estimates or fossil details - in this case it is especially problematic because the "biggest ever" claim was also used for commercial purposes. It's a claim journalists have no reason not to believe (which is probably why it's repeated everywhere) but without proper scientific examination it should under no circumstances be treated as accurate/confirmed. It is very much against normal procedure and reflects poorly on the project to base an entire paleontology article on news stories, without academic references. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the claim that this is the largest specimen of Triceratops originated in Guinness World Records, which is not considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. I see no evidence that BBC is not simply repeating that claim, and BBC cannot be considered an expert source on dinosaur anatomy. As such, BBC repeating the claim cannot be treated as independent verification that this is the largest Triceratops specimen. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to add that it is precisely on grounds of verifiability, not truth, that I am making this argument. I think it is perfectly plausible, albeit not yet convincingly demonstrated, that this specimen is indeed the largest Triceratops individual yet known from adequate material. It's my doubt in the reliability of the sources for this claim that is where my objection lies. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable indisputably. Y'all may not like these many independent sources, but they exist. Deleting them does note negate their existence. Notability is established per WP:GNG. WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. Indeed, your claim that it is not the largest (contrary to all those articles) is WP:OR without WP:RS; or WP:Synth. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your takeaway of our concerns is really that we are claiming "it is not the largest", then I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood this entire discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your takeaway of my concern is that this is about size (other than multiple reliable sources and WP:GNG), then you have grossly misunderstood this entire discussion. How we characterize the positions is essentially irrelevant. You presume to attack the editorial decisions and judgment of many independent notable news sources. Ipse dixit doesn't apply. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. Mischaracterization of the positions put forth in a discussion is a poor signal of good-faith engagement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is relevant, look in the mirror. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not the one who set the tone of the discussion here. And further discussions of source reliability are orthogonal to the clear notability issues here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough references here and spread over a long enough time period to easily meet WP:GNG normally, so I disagree that there are "clear notability issues". Even if you disagree with what the sources say, WP:TRUTH suggests that the sources and article here are valid. NemesisAT (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, you are clearly misunderstanding my position, whether that is because I have phrased it poorly, we have simply miscommunicated, or you are acting in bad faith. I have clearly laid out an explanation of why it is reasonable to suspect that all these "independent" and "reliable" sources are simply repeating a claim made by a source, regarded as being of dubious reliability, that does not automatically establish notability. There is a long-standing history of news sources, even those regarded as generally high-quality, getting paleontological facts wrong. Skepticism over this claim is justified, so I believe that the argument that this is notable because it is the largest Triceratops specimen is a spurious one. The auction alone would fall under WP:NOTNEWS, so the notability of this article must stand or fall on the matter of whether the earlier local news about the specimen being publicly exhibited by the fossil dealer prior to the auction is adequate to establish notability. I think they are not. Lots of one-off local events in a major city get mentioned in a few news articles in places near the city. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philip J. Currie, who works as a consultant for Guinness World Records, has stated "Over the years I have looked at lots of Triceratops fossils, but this is unquestionably the largest Triceratops skull I have ever seen." [3], that's still different from "largest specimen" though, and the latter claim remains unsubstantiated by reliable sources, who are parroting the auctioneers claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NOTNEWS does the subject fall foul of? Nowhere in NOTNEWS does it suggest you can use the guideline to dismiss individual sources. NemesisAT (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that, if we only had the recent coverage of the auction, this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As such, the question is whether the earlier articles are adequate to establish sustained notability. To give an analogy, imagine a person was in the news for some crime—some bog-standard Florida Man story or something, it doesn't really matter. Not a major crime that results in a long-term media circus, in any case. Obviously, NOTNEWS applies there. However, somebody was able to find a couple articles in local newspapers from a few years ago in which they're mentioned as having been the star of their highschool football team; these articles also include a couple other details about their childhood. Does this equal WP:SUSTAINED coverage? Ornithopsis (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and convincing discussions above. All but one source is from October 2021 regarding the sale of the specimen. Places like auctions houses routinely employ PR firms to place stories of unusual or highly priced items - hence why we see these every now and then (journalists are not sat around reading auction catalogues). This is to build buzz around a particular auction or just generally to promote the auction house. Obviously this auction house did a good job and managed to get the story to catch fire. One-off coverage by RS does not give GNG. If sigcov of this topic emerges in the future the page should be created but right now it’s WP:TOOSOON. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really believe the BBC would run a promotional story without disclosure? As for "All but one source is from October 2021 regarding the sale of the specimen.", that's not true. I count six sources from before then (even excluding a press release). NemesisAT (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the most cogent arguments are as per WP:NOTNEWS. Especially that of Drmies. Any of the very limited pertinent information could be added to the Triceratops article by any interested editor. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS appears to discuss events, this article isn't about an event it's about an object and there is coverage over several months. NemesisAT (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following point 4 under WP:NOTNEWS, the events and characteristics of this object that have been focused on by news coverage are not notable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point four is quite clearly discussing people, not objects. It doesn't apply. NemesisAT (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why individual people should be treated differently from individual objects. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They quite clearly should be, and are, treated differently to objects as WP:BLP discusses. And even if we were applying point 4 here, it starts with Even when an individual is notable, so by following point 4 you are arguing that the dinosaur is indeed notable. NemesisAT (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, but if there is a general lack of notable details to be included then is the overall object notable? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tricky question, similar to the Super Mario 64 question above, however my interpretation of WP:GNG is it is applied to the overall topic and not individual facts or sentences within articles. There seems to be enough here (excluding the disputed content) to write an article (not a stub), and easily enough sources for verification (even if they're not telling the WP:TRUTH). Whether the detail is interesting or not, or notable or not, is subjective, but frankly if Wikipedia was limited to what I found interesting then it would be a lot smaller! NemesisAT (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The event is the auction where it was sold for a record sale price, which contributes to a large part of its supposed notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly not written that way. It covers its discovery seven years ago, naming, purchase, assembly, and multiple public displays, before finally the auction. The article is not about an event. NemesisAT (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying that a person is notable for more than one event because they were born 30 years ago. The public displays in question were by the fossil dealer; the fact that somebody planning to auction off an object promoted the object before selling it hardly increases its notability. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The premise of this nomination "there's nothing to say about this skeleton other than the price" is simply wrong, as a glance at the current version of the article clearly shows. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing other than boring, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL details that could apply to any dinosaur skeleton, like the Allosaurus skeleton that sold for €3 million this time last year. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Entertainment value is not a relevant factor at AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about entertainment, it's the fact that nothing about the coverage of this skeleton indicates that it is any more significant than any other of the many dinosaur skeletons that have been sold for high prices at auction over the past decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Like Stan (dinosaur). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be more significant. It just needs adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, it's subjective, and is trumped by GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stan is a specimen with a long and notable history before he was auctioned for a record price. This specimen does not, other than minor coverage that would probably be given to any Triceratops skeleton. I could counter with the unnamed Allosaurus skeleton that [sold for €3 million this time last year, the specimen of what was suggested to be a new species of Allosaurus that sold for €2 million in 2018 that was actually caused a controversy with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology due to it potentially representing a new species, the juvenile Allosaurus that was put up for auction in 2015 with a guide price of 500,000, but subsequently failed to sell, the Diplodocus skeleton that went for £400,000 in 2013, or the woolly mammoth skeleton that sold for €548,000 in 2017, or the Tarbosaurus skeleton at the centre of the United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton case. All of these received equivalent coverage to the "Big John" sale, but aren't notable on their own, but are important as part of a broader narrative about the commercial fossil trade, and should be noted in the relevant article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those have the WP:SUSTAINED coverage that this skeleton does? If so, you could write an article about them. That's what makes Wikipedia special. NemesisAT (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton case, and the man at its center, Erik Prokopi, had a whole book: The Dinosaur Artist: Obsession, Betrayal, and the Quest for Earth's Ultimate Trophy. There is probably much expansion that could be done based on the book, if one wished. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Tarbosaurus skull that Nicholas Cage bought at auction outbidding Leonardo Di Caprio, then returned to the Mongolian government after finding out was smuggled, has similarly sustained coverage, but I'd argue it doesn't jusify an article either. Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • Comment I would potentially be open to a compromise solution of creating a "list of dinosaur specimens sold at public auction", or something similar, that would allow for specimens such as this to recieve some coverage without creating a bunch of permastubs. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable proposal, and I support it. As I have documented above, there are many other sales of dinosaurs at auction, include some very notable ones like Sue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. Vast improvements have been made. WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article still isn't very substantial, and likely will never be significantly expanded beyond its current point. Furthermore, I don't see how that's relevant to my compromise solution. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for that article to be created, but see no reason why this one must be deleted first. I don't want us to end up with another unwieldy list like Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. NemesisAT (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would envision each entry on the list to have a paragraph or so summarizing basic information on the specimen such as when and where the specimen was discovered, events leading up to the auction, sale price, and a couple of notable facts if they exist. Specimens for which there is substantially more to say, such as Sue or Stan, would recieve standalone articles as well, but this specimen has no information that couldn't be summarized in a one or two-paragraph entry on the specimen in a list. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge to a hypothetical list of dinosaur specimens sold at public auction. It would be much more useful to have this information in the context of similar specimens (considering, e.g., the mention of Stan in this article), and it would avoid redundancy by centralizing information about the dinosaur fossil trade (see many sentences in §Public display and auction). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support including information about this specimen in a hypothetical new article on sold dinosaur specimens, which is a practice with significantly more and better sources available. I maintain that maintaining this article as a standalone one is against normal procedure and reflects poorly on the project; it's ridiculous to have an article on a dinosaur specimen with 0 academic sources (the sources for the near-completely unrelated note concerning Dakotraptor do not count). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject has sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to meet notability standards. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject meets WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the claim that this article should not be deleted because WP:GNG has been met: note that GNG explicitly says that GNG is not the end of the discussion. Meeting GNG "...creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information." Creating an article for what is one of many similar objects in the categories "Triceratops fossils" and "dinosaur fossils sold at an auction" seems a little bit indiscriminate to me, and there exists a precedent for covering individual specimens within more general articles unless they are exceptionally noteworthy. Moreover, the fact that something is notable enough to cover on Wikipedia does not mean it necessarily needs its own article. My proposed compromise solution above would allow adequate coverage of this specimen in a format that places it in the proper context, and allows for similar specimens to be covered without requiring further debate over notability. I see no advantage to a standalone article existing whent it could be included in a list containing a short entry on each specimen—analogous in structure to many of the "list of fictional characters" articles, or the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article, for instance. There's much less to say on this specimen than many of the specimens included in the list of specimens of Tyrannosaurus, so I do not believe that the list growing unmanageably long is a major concern as of yet. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience with deletion discussions, meeting GNG or a subject guideline is enough for a page to be kept. If we're taking indiscriminate to mean "done at random or without careful judgement", dare I say that's how much of Wikipedia is made and edited. I don't log on each day with a plan for what I'm going to do, rather I check my watchlist, check local news websites, and see where that takes me. As for the list, there is nothing stopping you from making said list now. Many lists contain a mixture of items with their own article and items without. I disagree wholeheartedly with your last point, as clearly if there are other specimens with more to write about than this one, your list containing all this information will quickly grow very long, unless you plan to remove verifiable information which I feel goes against the core aims of Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to List of dinosaur specimens with nicknames#Chasmosaurines where the subject is already mentioned, or perhaps the triceratops article as suggested above. 'Assembly' and 'Public display and auction' both fail WP:NOTNEWS almost in entirety, whereas the 'Discovery and description' reads much like a database which should probably be incorporated to some list. User:Ichthyovenator is also probably correct in saying that an article like this should have specialist literature to back it up. Unless there's some actual encyclopedic commentary on the subject, a standalone article isn't likely to be adequate. Avilich (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponderings: - this is the first "Article for Deletion" discussion I have followed. Wow, are they normally so extensive? I'm amazed that people feel so passionately on both sides of the issue. I initially voted to "delete" near the very top of this, but since then, the article has significantly improved. I'm still not quite sure whether it really should have its own page, but at this point, I guess I just wonder what is the harm? It now seems to be a decent enough page... Even if this topic does end up being covered on a "list of fossils sold at auction", or on the triceratops page itself, a little redundancy won't hurt. Redundant info is all over wikipedia. So should we concede and just let them have it? Cougroyalty (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Articles for Deletion! Haha no most of the time there's a handful of votes if any. I think I've made my case already so this is just a neutral comment to say you can always strike your vote and make a new one, if you wish. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that this article sets a bad precedent (consistency - should every specimen mentioned in the news have an article????, the lack of academic sources, etc.), and I don't think the issues raised by the paleontology regulars should be overlooked. Merging or deleting still feels much more preferable to me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup to this, the article has several issues that I think are symptomatic of the lack of scientific sources for the topic. First, the short description is "very complete Triceratops fossil", but the specimen is only a bit over half complete, and at least one actual paleontologist has remarked "it's not a great specimen" [4]. I've already explained my reasons for being skeptical of the size-related claim, and the claim of a traumatic injury should likewise be viewed with skepticism unless confirmed by paleontological research (which it can't be, now that it's been sold to a private collector). I'm also not sure if describing the discoverer as a paleontologist is appropriate—what scientific research has Walter Stein been involved in? Or is "paleontologist" being used very broadly to include "fossil collector"? What evidence is there that any of the articles by the BBC, etc. actually consulted paleontologists to corroborate the claims made, rather than simply repeating the claims made by the fossil dealer? I agree with Ichthyovenator that it sets a bad precedent to have an article on a dinosaur specimen that is not, and cannot be, backed up by any peer-reviewed research. We're still dealing with a specimen whose only associated events are essentially the acquisition, promotion, and sale of an object; it isn't something with clear sustained significance beyond that. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. As mentioned above, this doesn't seem to meet the sustained coverage requirements and seems fairly obscure. The coverage is essentially all just focused on the auction. 61.92.102.142 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been expanded considerably since its nomination. The earliest news report is from January, demonstrating that there has been coverage for nearly a year. This article contains far too much information to be reduced to a few sentences on a list. From the list of named dinosaur specimens, I see many that could also have their own articles. These fairly compete dinosaur skeletons are fairly rare. If there is sustained media coverage, they should have articles. Some editors have mentioned the controversy around this specimen’s lack of academic examination. Will that ever occur? It is quite possible that this specimen may be exhibited at some point. This article would be a good way to record the history of it to prevent any possible whitewashing of its past. I imagine there will be published writings critiquing the way “Big John” was handled in the near future? It would be nice to have a healthy controversy section. Thriley (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on previous instances of specimens being auctioned, it is reasonably likely that there will be no further coverage of this specimen in the foreseeable future. Now that it's been sold to an anonymous buyer, we may well never hear of this specimen again, and it is nearly certain not to be scientifically studied in the foreseeable future. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to keep making so many comments, but I found some information that I think illustrates an important point: a Triceratops skull called "Dragon King" was planned for auction in 2015 (I can't figure out if it sold), based on a skull reported to be 2.8 meters long, which is larger than "Big John" [5] [6] The skull is also reportedly significantly more complete than that of "Big John", although it apparently lacks (collected) postcranial elements. Now, obviously, they can't both be the biggest—so what's the evidence that "Big John" is bigger than "Dragon King"? This goes to prove my point that claims like "biggest specimen of some type of dinosaur" are common in the popular media and we shouldn't take them too seriously. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, both articles provide very good evidence that auction news reports are not always reliable sources for scientific articles: "65 million-year-old male Triceratops skull" (might I note that both are listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSPSOURCES). That's impossible, because the end of the Cretaceous period is dated to 66 Ma. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, the claim that the specimen is male is also suspect—I believe that there's no widely-accepted way to sex a dinosaur skull, not even for species with elaborate ornamentation (all ceratopsids had it, not only males). Ornithopsis (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research in Newspapers: @Ornithopsis: Just a note about auction house claims: An auction house would be quickly sued for any embellishment. Reputation is everything in the business. When something is unverified at any auction they call it out as such. I spent some time I searching Triceratops Skulls. Using the word Dragon reveals the fact that most of the sources (especially late 19th century and early 20th century refer or compare the head of a triceratops as a "Dragon". I can find no use of Dragon King. I can see how you could have been misled by the use of the word Dragon - it was a logical inference. Next I searched triceratops and largest, and it looks like 1963 they found a big one and then a bigger one was found in 1997. The 1963 story was picked up and reported widely. From what I have read when a Triceratops is found it is usually only fragments of the head, or a partial horn. Sadly most of these articles do not measure width, just length. But after reading we can probably agree Big John is large.
1892 40” high partial horn 1892 head
1901 7’ long head 1901 head
1903 7.5 feet long and 5.5 wide skull 1903 head
1906 4 feet high and 6.5 long 1906 head
1934 just trivia 1934 looks like trivia
1963 Skull 8 feet long! At the time the largest ever found 1963 head
1998 Might be largest ever found at the time 8 feet long 800 pounds 1998 head
2002 No Size Given 2002 head
2003 no size I can see 2003 head Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to ask you to read the articles I linked in my comment. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding your comment that they can't lie about its size: one, "it would be illegal for them to lie" doesn't make something a reliable source, and two, there are several cases of smuggled dinosaur specimens with forged documentation being sold at auctions, the most famous of which was subject to United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, so I don't think we can say the auctioneers are doing a very good job of making sure that nothing illegal is happening. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No I did not say illegal. But they must verify, you think the guy who paid 7m wouldn't sue them if it was now the 2nd largest? And apologies, I just read it. From what I can see the city of the "Dragon King" in your article was Glendive montana, the only discoveries reported found in that city were in 1935 and I think 1963. Big John is very big from what I have read. This is a great encyclopedic article. I think our readers will love it, but also look through the articles I found, to see measurements, my eyes are bleary. we could probably waste more bytes on squabbling about inches, Looks like there are many metrics: width, height, length, weight. I hope that you will say, hey the article is good for the project. I for one will be disappointed if it is not kept. Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, paraphrasing what you said as "illegal" was hyperbolic, I admit. Anyhow: I don't care whether this specimen is the largest, second-largest, or whatever. My point is that we have an article built around the following: a single, fairly run-of-the-mill event, a single untrustworthy factual claim, and a bit of background to that single run-of-the-mill event. That isn't encyclopedic. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Oppenheimer Blue is the largest blue diamond in the world. Are there Blood diamonds bigger? Or smuggled? Or in private collection? We cannot consider what we do not know about. Regarding the DINO - I have three events I outlined in my rationale. And WP:MILL is only an essay. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, we can't take into account unknown unknowns. However, as it so happens, we do know two things: One, there is an established Wikipedia policy that Guinness World Records is not to be trusted for establishing article notability. Two, there is a documented example of a specimen reported to be both larger and with a better-preserved skull. You say there are three notable events in the history of the specimen: discovery, size, and sale. Well, discovery is inherent to every dinosaur skeleton we know about, so that's like citing "this person was born" as a justification for giving them a biography. Size, as I have demonstrated, is not reliable. Sale falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a Triceratops specimen is 65, not 66, million years old is a very remarkable claim. One might wonder why no one has sued them? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few aditors have weighed in. I disagreed with NTNEWS and provided rationale. But now we are just sniping and picking. Carbon dating is inexact and it is not the realm of the auction house dishonesty. Best thing we can do is allow a competent closer to assess this monstrous thread, see what I did there? Also your assessment of Guinness World Book does not square with the perennial reliable sources page. Guinness is tagged with this. The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. and specifically There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. I think it is not being used to establish notability but it is referenced in conjunction with other references that create a preponderance of evidence. Anyway, these bones have taken enough of my time. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, personally, cited the size of this specimen as one of the reasons this specimen is notable. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone interested in that very large skull (1963 discovery by James Jensen of BYU). An AP photo to show the scale of the dino skull. And an article describing it. Needed a crane to lift it, and they had to make a road to get to it. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to wrap up my feelings on this matter. I do not think it is a good idea to keep this article for four reasons: it is not encyclopedic, it is poorly sourced, I do not believe a standalone article is the best way for Wikipedia to cover this topic, and I believe it sets a bad precedent. First, I believe it is not encyclopedic because it is largely based on a single news event and it covers a relatively unremarkable subject. It's true that news coverage of this specimen goes back several months, but all of that news coverage is essentially about the fossil dealer exhibiting the specimen. As such, I believe that all pre-auction news reports can be considered to cover the promotion of the object in preparation for its sale, and shouldn't be viewed as evidence of sustained relevance of the specimen independent of its sale. Furthermore, this specimen is not all that remarkable: it is one of dozens, if not hundreds, of Triceratops skeletons, and one of dozens, if not hundreds, of dinosaur fossils that have been sold at auction. A fair amount of information is available on many of these specimens. Would it be appropriate to give every such specimen its own article? I think not. Second, I believe that this article is poorly-sourced. All we have to go on is the popular press reporting claims made by a salesman; there is very little scientific information available on it. If this article is kept, the arguments had above over how trustworthy the claims made about this specimen are will doubtlessly continue. Third, I believe that this specimen being given a standalone article removes it from its proper context. Keeping this as a standalone article invites the reader to view it in isolation, and not as part of the larger phenomena of Triceratops and the fossil trade. Fourth, I believe that this article sets a bad precedent, by implying that many of the dozens of other specimens that have been the subject of a few news articles should also recieve standalone articles. In many cases, those articles will be even more questionable than this one. To sum up, I believe that these issues are reasons why this article is not only insufficient, but not in line with Wikipedia's goal of being a trustworthy and encyclopedic source of information. There is no reason to expect any of these issues will ever be resolved: now that the specimen has been sold to a private bidder, it is unlikely to be studied by scientists in the foreseeable future, and it is unlikely that there will be any further coverage of the specimen. Finally, Wikipedia is not the sole archive of information on the internet: removing this article does not eliminate knowledge from the world, it merely means an interested individual would have to go to different websites to find that information. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The well-sourced page includes the quote: Bacchia opined that, "It's a masterpiece," and "There are quite a few triceratops skulls around in the world, but very few of them almost complete." Encyclopedic worthy six ways to Sunday (I know five). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this sarcastic? I genuinely can't tell. Man involved in sale of dinosaur calls it a masterpiece, much wow, such notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And correctly notes its unique extent-of-completeness. It's a wonderful specimen of a very popular animal. "Masterpiece" might just be correct in this case. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have an actual paleontologist who doesn't have a financial conflict of interest in their assessment of the specimen saying "it's not a great specimen" [7] Ornithopsis (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness Book of World Records = no good. Tweet on Twitter = good. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Financial conflict of interest = bad. Third-party opinions by a subject matter expert = good. More to the point, of course I don't think a tweet is to be trusted unquestioningly, but it does provide corroborating evidence to my argument that the claims made by the fossil dealer (and by news organizations who got their information from the fossil dealer) may be overblown. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness Book of World Records is paid PR. Their whole business model now is generating publicity for their paying clients by coming up with world records to break. See Vox, NPR, Public Relations and Communications Association. Answer me this, did a "largest Triceratops" world record exist before Big John? Talking to you and other ARS members is like talking to a brick wall, the lack of understanding or care for our Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy is shocking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh I think we're done here.  Done Lightburst (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few largely-complete triceratops skeletons, and it would be nice if each one had a Wikipedia page. This one does, it's well-sourced and well-written. Nothing broken, reasons to delete it circle the point that it was sold to a private owner and hasn't, as yet, ended up in a museum (probably almost all Natural History museums would love to have it). Full disclosure: If Wikipedia were running out of server space I might agree that it needs to be dumped, so that guy who batted once in the major leagues gets his proper page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Well-sourced" is a bold claim for an article on a scientific topic that contains no relevant citations to scientific research, and for which several of the claims made are dubious. Also, Fowler's tweet leads me to suspect that this is not, in fact, one of the most complete Triceratops skeletons, but I don't have every Triceratops skeleton memorized or anything. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's clear in this conversation is that you do not know what you are talking about. The skeleton is only around 60% complete, for one thing. Triceratops is literally the most common animal in the Hell Creek Formation, representing 40% of all skeletons recovered from it [8], there are dozens of named Triceratops skeletons as I have noted above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I obviously know nothing, I'll let the journal article you linked to speak: "Triceratops is the most common dinosaur and isolated skulls contribute to a significant portion of this census. Associated specimens of Triceratops consisting of both cranial and postcranial elements remain relatively rare. This rarity may be explained by a historical collecting bias influenced by facies and taphonomic factors. The limited discovery of postcranial elements may also depend on how extensive a fossil quarry is expanded after a skull is collected." Common, kind of, yes, but usually incomplete (so 60 percent at this size not a bad haul of bones). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the skeleton is 60 % complete (and any other claims having to do with the specimen itself regarding size, skeletal features etc.) should be treated with caution since it's not been provided through an academic source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quarry map shows that the specimen is unimpressive, even for a Triceratops. The skull is smashed up and exactly two fragments are labelled as belonging to the frill. The bones of the body are all over the place. Contrast that to Triceratops "brevicornus" (=T. prorsus) where the entire skull is more or less complete and the sequence of vertebrae was preserved as it would have been arranged in life. Many specimens have skulls that are as good as this, if not better. There are even better specimens that preserve more of the postcranium. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NOTNEWS. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOT is a policy whereas WP:N and WP:HEY, on which much of the keep position is based, aren't. All of this focus on whether the current sourcing adequately establishes the specimen's size/notability, or whether physical traits or sale prices even matter, is thus secondary. There is no consensus that N is met here, but I'm not seeing the NOTNEWS and NOTwhatever arguments directly addressed very much. So there may be here a policy-based consensus to delete, or perhaps redirect and merge as I suggested above. And the idea that topics like this should be covered by specialists and not only by journalists is reasonable. Avilich (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The NOTNEWS argument has been countered over and over, I see little point in going through it again. I'm not seeing any policy-based consensus. NemesisAT (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several people brought it up, but you're te only one bringing arguments against it, and your main point is that it doesn't apply (for some reason) to news about objects. Avilich (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking down WP:NOTNEWS:
  • Point 1: "Original Reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." I don't think this point applies here.
  • Point 2: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The dinosaur is not a person, and the article covers the discovery, assembly, exhibition, etc of the dinosaur and not just the "event" of its sale. So I don't think this point applies either.
  • Point 3: "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." This isn't relevant.
  • Point 4: "Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable..." this refers to notable people, not objects, and even if we did choose to apply this point, it explicitly states that the subject in question is notable. NemesisAT (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty clear to me that point 2 should apply here, specifically the part that reads most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. It's already been argued (thoroughly in my opinion) why the discovery, assembly, exhibition and sale is not sufficient for a sole article. It remains worth pointing out that none of the keep-voters have responded to how it would be strange to have a paleontology article with no academic sources because (as also has been argued) this not only makes the article and by extension the project look less serious, it also risks promoting unreliable and unverified information. Several of the sources used in the article currently are not only lacklustre news articles, but some are outright perplexing (a YouTube video posted by "LitoralGames"???). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't specifically say it isn't about objects, and I think it's clear that objects fit within the spirit of the rule, even if they aren't specifically listed. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically says "persons and events". At this point, you may as well cite WP:IAR. NemesisAT (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2 doesn't apply because the article is written about an object not an event, and there is no way its discovery and excavation years ago are the same "event" as its exhibition and sale in 2021.
I don't think it's strange at all. I don't think I've ever used an academic article as a source, and I've started hundreds of articles. This particular skeleton has been covered by mainstream press over a WP:SUSTAINED period, which is why it's notable. I am not claiming it is notable because of its size, or sale price, I'm saying it is notable because it passes WP:GNG.
I've removed the YouTube video in question, one bad source is no reason to argue for deletion and it is not representative of the overall level of sourcing which includes top national outlets like the BBC and The Guardian. NemesisAT (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery and excavation of the specimen doesn't count, as I have said several times. That's as intrinsic to known dinosaur specimens as being born is to people. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't count in your opinion. I disagree, as there are several variables here. The bones could have been left in the ground. The assembly process was carried out by a third party, in a specific location. There was also a choice made in the posture of the assembled dinosaur. The dinosaur isn't a person, the coverage is not of it being "born", so I don't think it is comparable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much room for debate on this. Obviously, if a dinosaur specimen is notable, it makes sense to cover what is known about its discovery and excavation—just like how a biography article would say when and where a person was born, and who their parents were, or an article on a building would say who the architect was and when it was built. But the fact that the person was born or the building was built does not confer notability on it, because every person was born and every building was built. Likewise, it's impossible to find a mention of a dinosaur fossil that wasn't discovered, pretty much by definition. As such, it is plainly absurd to regard the discovery of a specimen as an intrinsically notable event. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on this, in regards to buildings. If the construction of a building is covered in sources of such high standard as BBC News and The Guardian, and in enough detail, then that would be enough to establish notability. Also, the construction of a building is not instantaneous, so coverage from the beginning to end of construction could be enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED. NemesisAT (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And news sources didn't cover the discovery and excavation of the specimen—not until it became relevant background information for the auction. As such, it isn't independent of the auction coverage. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other information in a source doesn't disappear because the source discusses the auction. Plus, we have sources from months prior to the sale. Besides, WP:SUSTAINED makes it clear that there is a higher bar for people - other subjects enjoy a bit more leeway. You seem to be trying to hold this specimen to a much higher notability standard than is usually required for a non-biographical Wikipedia article. NemesisAT (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't arguing over whether or not the information exists. We're arguing over whether there exists coverage that establishes that this specimen is notable for more than a single news event. The information on the discovery and excavation of this specimen is only provided as background information to articles about the promotion and sale of this specimen. The fossil dealer has certainly done a good job promoting this specimen, I'll admit that much, but I don't think we can treat a salesman marketing an item as an independent event from the sale of that item. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't see a fundamental problem with an article on a paleontological subject completely lacking academic references means that there is no way we can reconcile our views on this. For an article on a scientific subject, only citing news articles of variable quality or even worse sources is not something I would call a good "level of sourcing". Yes, there are two references to the BBC and two to The Guardian, but there was also the (now thankfully removed) YouTube video and there are still references to Italian tourism websites (?????), several Italian and Slovenian news sites which I'm not sure all meet WP:RS etc. The problems with citing news have already been explained multiple times, not to mention the problems with these other sources. For a science article the sourcing is laughably bad and as I've mentioned multiple times, it reflects poorly on the project and makes it look a lot less serious and a lot less encyclopedic. That you've never used an academic article as a source is either indicative of that you don't tend to write about subjects that generally require those (for instance paleontology, zoology, history etc.) or an issue in of itself.
I don't think this fulfills WP:GNG at all. The sources are IMO not sufficient for a science article and the many issues associated with them have already been pointed out. Significantly in this case is that a lot of them are in fact associated with the subject in question since the only source of information on the specimen are the people trying to sell it, who in turn have provided info to everyone writing the news (check point #4 of WP:GNG). I also find it strange that you believe that this not being an event or a person somehow excludes it from WP:NOTNEWS - no it doesn't specifically say it relates to objects but come on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hemiauchenia and I have implemented my proposed compromise solution of a List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction, although of course there's still room for improvement. Note that this list already contains the majority of information included in the Big John article, and it would not be hard to add a couple more sentences to add the other important information if deemed necessary. Also note that Big John is neither the largest nor most complete Triceratops specimen we have included in this list. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I like the list article, I still feel this article should be kept as a separate article for reasons I've explained above. Another problem that occurred to me just now is that as your list relies on large tables, it is hard to read on my phone (and I have a larger than average mobile phone!). Folks who search for "Big John" on Google will be better served by a separate article that is easier to read, and a link in the footer to the list article can allow them to find more general information if they wish. NemesisAT (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list makes this article unnecessary and that this should be merged there. The point about the list being problematic because it relies on large tables doesn't make sense to me - that's what a vast amount of lists on Wikipedia do. It's a large table but to me it is perfectly navigable on my phone. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to bring up suggestions for better formatting the list on the article's talk page, if you want. The current formatting of the list is not an intrinsic property of the article and can be changed if necessary. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I understand the concept of WP:NOTNEWS, but I kind of disagree with the assessment we are placing that in. The way I see it, we are more cataloging this rare find to an encyclopaedic page. I would be all for a full keep if this was in a public museum which means that the article is covering a rare item in a public collection. However this has gone to a private collection which is still covered. This does give inherent weakness in my view but not one from having an article. I feel GNG has been established. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Triceratops skeletons are not rare, the vast majority of dinosaur species are only known from a single specimen, but Triceratops is known from dozens. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know this is like my tenth comment, I just keep thinking of more things I would like to say. I would like to point out another thing: the four most active pro-delete editors in this discussion (myself included) are all active contributors to paleontology-related articles, but as far as I can tell, none of the four most active pro-keep editors are particularly involved in paleontology (searching their edit history, this article is the only paleontology-related article I've been able to find them to have contributed to). Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, no pro-keep editor has a history of editing paleontology articles. I don't mean to imply that I believe their lack of prior engagement with the topic invalidates their opinions; rather, my point is that I feel that their lack of familiarity with the topic may mean they don't fully appreciate our perspective here. There are certainly hundreds, probably thousands, of dinosaur specimens for which a comparable, if not greater, quantity of reliably-sourced information exists, over an comparably or more sustained period. Historically, paleontology editors have taken the approach to discuss these specimens on the pages for the relevant species as appropriate, and only creating individual specimen pages in exceptional cases such as Sue or the Fighting Dinosaurs. Keeping the page on Big John would be a major shift from established precedent in terms of the threshold at which an individual dinosaur specimen merits its own article. There really isn't much to say about this specimen that couldn't be said on the Triceratops or List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction articles, so I hardly see the need to change that established precedent on its account. Also, remember, WP:GNG does not guarantee notability, and notability does not necessarily mean that a standalone page is the best way to present information. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Why on earth should that matter what people are into, everyone has a right to cast a vote if they so wish. Sounds like you're acting like Sheldon Cooper, belittling others and not knowing you're doing that. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you mean well but I don't believe a closer should place weight on an editors bavkground. I also think we've gone over and understand the delete voters reasoning, but we disagree on some key points. I agree with Govvy here. My main interest is trains and buses, that wasn't enough to save a London Bus route article I created a while ago from deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Humble Reply. This RM is the first I've heard of this strange word "dinosaur", apparently large animals who shed their skins during the cocoon phase? I had thought that a good shell of one of these things would be worth a well-written and well-sourced article, such as those of many meteorites or artworks in public or private hands, but since my middle-school degree isn't in "Big animal husks", thanks for setting me on the straight and narrow. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I feel that my tone may have come across as a bit harsh and dismissive. Again, I don't mean that any of your opinions should be disregarded. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that people from a variety of perspectives can come together to work on the project. However, I am asking all of you (and anyone else considering a keep vote) to consider that we paleontology editors have decent reasons for agreeing that this specimen is fairly unremarkable, that the sources in question cannot be trusted as reliable sources for paleontological information, and that the relevant information on this specimen can be adequately covered elsewhere. A large part of this specimen is made of plaster and hype. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yeah, this reads a bit too close to gatekeeping but I understand the frustration (especially considering the massive length of this discussion) when editors unfamiliar with a particular subject are effectively arguing against the current consistency and precedents of articles concerning that subject. Arguments should be heard and considered regardless of who makes them. That said, I feel that the policy-based arguments for deleting or merging this article, the (for a science article) disastrous sourcing, and that multiple of the keep voters are currently involved in discussions against their conduct in AfD discussions at the admin noticeboard provide a sufficiently strong case for the deletion of this article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I count thirteen keep or weak keep votes, three of these are from users being discussed at ANI. That being said, shouldn't this discussion be considered on its own merits and not what is happening elsewhere? NemesisAT (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said "multiple of the keep voters", not "all of the keep voters" or "a majority of the keep voters". Of course the discussion should be considered on its own merits, but since IMO the keep arguments forwarded by these voters were not very strong it felt relevant to mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be tons of significant independent reliable coverage of this topic by major news sources: BBC, the Independent, Reuters, etc. Yes, much of it is focused on the auction, but they contain a significant amount of other information about this skeleton so that the article doesn't seem to violate the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS Danstronger (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the coverage is not that independent given that the only way for these news sources to have gained any information on the specimen is through the people that sold it. As has been pointed out above, the information about the skeleton itself should be considered unverified given that it has not been studied by scientists (and likely never will be). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not. "Discovery and description" is basically a database, whereas the rest comprises just run-of-the-mill details about the auction and display. There are lists, examples suggested above, better suited to hold some of the content here. A full encyclopedic article would require actual commentary from secondary, preferably subject-matter-specialist sources. Avilich (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RUNOFTHEMILL (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) says "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Even if this skeleton isn't the largest of its type, I'm struggling to see how anyone could label a dinosaur skeleton as a common, everyday, ordinary item. I don't think this article fits in any of the points raised in WP:NOTDATABASE either. NemesisAT (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Run-of-the-mill" (the essay supplements the guideline WP:ROUTINE) includes statements like "The remains of Big John were purchased for €150,000", "The assembly process began in January 2021 and was live-streamed on the company's social media channels", "The skull first went on public display in Trieste in February 2021", and just about every sentence in the "Assembly", "Public display" and "Auction and sale", with a few exceptions. This is not to say that such statements should always be deleted. But a proper encyclopedic article isn't dominated by this sort of trivia. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel sorry for whoever is going to end up having to go through all of this when closing this discussion. I will just reiterate my standpoint here again, perhaps more clearly, since I did not get much of a response to my final reply last time and I'd like these thoughts to be clearly visible. While several of the sources used here fulfill WP:RS, several do not (Italian tourism websites, seemingly random international newspapers), and just because there are reliable sources available, this does not mean that something should have its own separate article. I also question whether it fulfills WP:GNG: are the sources truly independent of the subject? The only available source of information is the people that sold the fossil since scientists have not been able to study it. Is there significant coverage or just a handful of news articles (i.e. no academic/scientific discussion)? Keeping an article on a scientific subject such as this one without academic/scientific sources does not exactly help Wikipedia's reputation and makes it look a lot less serious. Imagine if the article on addition was sourced solely to news articles, or if the article on the Roman Empire did not cite a single history book or history paper.
Keeping this article would also set a precedent in which any dinosaur specimen could have its own article since there is very little to say about Big John and there are far more notable fossils out there that do not have their own articles. It's IMO much better covered in an overview article, either in the newly created List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction or in a new article on Triceratops specimens. I find the idea that WP:NOTNEWS does not extend to objects because they are not specifically mentioned to be ridiculous but that's a pointless point to keep arguing since it appears no one is able to convince the other side of their interpretation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (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/Big_John_(dinosaur)&oldid=1053485707"