Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon King (dinosaur skull)

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 merge to List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King (dinosaur skull)[edit]

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

Dragon King (dinosaur skull) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS, even less notable than Big John (dinosaur). There are only a handful of reliable sources covering the skull, which are all pre sale hype from around the same time in 2015, which fails WP:SUSTAINED. There is no follow-up coverage, which implies that the specimen failed to sell. At least for Big John, it was the 3rd most expensive dinosaur skeleton ever sold, what exactly is notable about this specimen? There is already an entry in the "Planned to be auctioned" section of the List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction article covering this specimen. At best, this article deserves to be redirected there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note here that I suspect the creation of the article by someone who has a COI with a relationship to people who own or owned the skull, I have presented evidence for why I think this is the case at COIN Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as AfC reviewer: "largest skull ever found" is the claim to notability in the article/coverage. Rusalkii (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Guinness World Records' coverage of Big John, Paleontologist Philip J. Currie says of the skull of Big John: Over the years I have looked at lots of Triceratops fossils, but this is unquestionably the largest Triceratops skull I have ever seen. The claim of "largest skull ever" for Dragon King is a promotional claim that was meant to hype up the (seemingly failed) sale, and is unverified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NOTNEWS isn't really applicable here since this is a physical thing that doesn't apply for 1E. Goes by standard WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only coverage the object has received is in the context of it being attempted to be sold at auction, an event. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's still not qualifying under NOTNEWS, since again, it's an object. The claim to notbility isn't the auction, but the purported size. This does nothing to either diminish or aid this AfD, it's just a minor correction for future reference. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, your intepretation is not universal, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_John_(dinosaur), where the delete voters arguments for WP:NOTNEWS were described as "convincing" by the closer, and that specimen has way more coverage than this one, with a small amount of coverage of the assembly many months prior to the sale. Big John was also described as the "biggest triceratops skeleton", so same difference really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't about an event, it's about an object. The object is notable for being the largest ever found to date, and has references supporting its notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, nor does WP:RECENTISM. I would also have !voted to keep Big John, I suspect if I'd seen it and it had references supporting a "largest (kind of dinosaur skeleton)" claim. I mean, Sue gets her own article for a similar reason. I don't see any reason to delete these either. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's claimed by the discoverers that it is, because they were trying to sell the fossil. This article is also likely promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sue has its own article because it's large, relatively complete, and has been (and continues to be) studied in the scientific literature. By contrast, Dragon King is a heavily reconstructed skull that is likely to stay in private hands. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the author of the page - there is no COI here as I am not trying to sell the skull privately, nor hype it up pre-auction. It is already owned privately and I don't know of any plans to re-sell it. I also do not own it. It deserves a page purely because it is the biggest skull ever found - bigger than Big John (if you look at the lengths). Guinness probably weren't aware of this skull when Big John claimed the title. This is fact and surely that is the kind of thing that is useful to wiki and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maudjohnson90: Thanks for the response Maud. Given that you appear to be privy to non-public information about the skull, can you explain what happened during the 2015 Evolve LTD auction? Did it fail to meet the reserve price? Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. Article amounts to a one-paragraph stub if irrelevant information is removed. Dubious claims of size (note the WP:SYNTH) from one source for one event, likely that we'll never hear about it again. Fails WP:GNG. Better serviced by a discussion in context of other dinosaurs sold at auction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction per comment above. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. The majority of claims made in this article are unsourced or original synthesis, and the few other claims are all sourced to a handful of articles about the planned auction of the specimen. The details pertaining to the discovery and excavation of the specimen are the kinds of details that could be found for thousands of dinosaur specimens. It's obviously absurd to use the argument "this is the largest Triceratops specimen, so it's notable" for two different specimens—at most one of them can be, and in this case we have no more than the word of the fossil dealer to go on. If you believe this is the largest Triceratops skull, I have a bridge to sell you. The handful of claims about this specimen that are actually relevant and adequately sourced are already included in the list of auctioned dinosaurs article. All arguments made against keeping "Big John" apply here, except far more strongly because this article is even more weakly sourced. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per above. Little reason for short articles about single specimens, especially if they're up for sale. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Information put out by people trying to sell something is questionably reliable at best, even more so when the skull has never been studied by paleontologists. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I've got no idea what happened at the auction, I wasn't aware of the skull then. I presume it didn't sell, as there is no hammer price listed. Also someone mentioned above that the skull is 'heavily reconstructed' but it isn't, it is over 95% complete, which is v. v. complete for a skull. There is an accompanying bone map by Barry James, who is a paleontologist who regularly reconstructs fossils, which proves this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 (talk • contribs)
I assume that it's this Barry James: [1] "Commercial paleontologist" is probably the most generous description possible for him. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, without reference to its size None of the claims about its size being the largest are reliable. The expert cited in the RS even admits as such According to Pittman, it’s difficult to ascertain whether it is actually the largest. ”To my knowledge, the up-to-date dataset one would need to know this does not exist in the peer-reviewed scientific journal article format that scientists use.” Thus, I support merging but without referencing this. Perhaps saying it is of significantly above-average size would be a good way to go about it.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to simply say that the auctioneers called it "the largest". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 December 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/Dragon_King_(dinosaur_skull)&oldid=1061825924"