Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloned Dinosaurs and Their Ability to Survive on Earth in the 21st Century

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 Snow delete per WP:SNOW. This is clearly original research, which we do not publish. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloned Dinosaurs and Their Ability to Survive on Earth in the 21st Century[edit]

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

A so-called "research paper", it is either WP:NOT#OR or WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator points out, this article openly claims to be a research paper, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. This bears little resemblance to an encyclopedia article, and is advancing an argument, rather than covering a notable topic in a neutral fashion. I made minor formatting changes to make it easier to evaluate the article, which has many other serious problems I won't bother to list or correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is indisputably WP:OR. The remaining question is whether the topic is itself notable, that is whether there are sources that discuss if dinosaurs could survive today and which would allow a non-OR article to be written. There are some popular science sources[1][2][3] and forums/blogs/etc[4][5][6][7][8], but that's not enough. It would probably be better to discuss it in an article on hypothetical dinosaur cloning, which is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly a WP:OR essay. I agree with Colapeninsula that dinosaur cloning would be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we were able to clone dinosaurs then it would be noteworthy, as we cant its opinion and future science that doestn contribute to anything taht should be on here Amortias (T)(C) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably don't need another, but per all of the OR-related reasons above: delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW, would someone like to do the honours here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2014 (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.