Talk:Mammalodon

The proposed deletion
I see that this article was nominated for deletion. The argument was "No notability". Bluntly put I disagree with that notion, to my knowledge Wikipedia considers any existing or extinct species of animal to be worthy of inclusion. Of course this animal is not well-known, but neither are articles like Primosten (a Croatian town). Mammalodon is also described in encyclopedias about prehistoric animals, so why shouldn't Wikipedia describe it? Jerkov 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammalodon length
I Agree, the page should remain, my question is 60cm long? surely that can't be right Elvisfromtj (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I found it in the reference the Evolution of Aquatic Tetrapods on page 25 if it is not contradicted elsewhere than it should stay. A 60 cm long whale does seem unlikely but this was a very early whale and there are examples of other small whales for example modern porpoises. I will search for an alternate reference to confirm. 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarbon (talk • contribs)

I agree the current size of 60cm is wrong. What I had put down must be condylobasal size therefore the current length is wrong. I've yet to find a reference for the its total length though. Jarbon (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)