Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is absolutely no reason why there should be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals of the Mesozoic (especially because the island only formed in the Late Cretaceous). It would make more sense to focus on other areas (such as China) with a more diverse mammalian fauna if at all, but in any case it would be redundant somewhat with Evolution of mammals. I think the only reason this article exists was to create a parent article for a Featured topic. It doesn’t meet the “Presumed” requirement of WP:GNG, and though cites a lot of sources, “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.” There are plenty of sources for the Mesozoic decapod crustaceans of Madagascar (like this, this, and this) but that doesn’t merit an article   User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The featured topic page state sit covers some fossils that are not covered in other articles, so we would at least need to find somewhere else to put that information before doing anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d argue it’d be best to wait until those undetermined fossils are given some kind of identification before bringing them up anywhere, or give a small sentence in their respective articles (like the multituberculate molar would be mentioned in Multituberculata)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Mesozoic mammals is a topic - it's a WP category, and also one in other publications, in general and in Madagascar specifically (eg 'Madagascar's Mesozoic Secrets' in Scientific American, Mesozoic Mammals: The First Two-Thirds of Mammalian History ) and university courses (eg ). It therefore meets WP:GNG Other publications also have articles about Mesozoic mammals in other countries/continents (eg Science China Press 'Mesozoic mammals—what do we know from China?' ). The fact that Wikipedia does not yet have articles on Mesozoic mammals of other countries/continents is not a reason to delete this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah and there’s this, this, and this about the Mesozoic decapod crustaceans of Madagascar. Does that mean it should have its own article? No, because “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article”  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per RebeccaGreen. The nom writes "[t]here is absolutely no reason why there should be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals".  I could equally argue "there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals".  It's an invalid argument either way – Wikipedia doesn't have to have articles on anything, but it can have articles on everything.  No policy-based rationale for deletion has been advanced. SpinningSpark 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t meet the “Presumed” requirement of WP:GNG, and I’d like to remind you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of independent references. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm honestly not seeing much of a problem with this article. Content, form and sourcing are fine, so the remaining question is whether the article fits appropriately into the current subject organization (as essentially was the issue with the recent lion articles brouhaha). That also seems fine by me; it's a useful hub article. Clearly it will never get as much material as an equivalent one about, e.g., China, but arguments that "we should rather be focusing on topic X instead of Y" are not what has generated Wikipedia - quite the opposite ;) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems rather trivial to have an entire article about a loosely connected group of less than 10 species on a land mass that formed in the last stages of the time period it encompasses  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The island formed in the last stages. The landmass formed long before that. SpinningSpark</b> 21:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My point still stands, it is largely trivial to give an article to one small group of creatures on one small corner of the world. The entirety of the Jurassic section is just a rehash of the taxonomy section of Ambondro. The first paragraph of Cretaceous is an incredibly long summary of Maevarano Formation (which could probably be reduced to a sentence), and remaining paragraphs talk at length about undescribed teeth which usually aren’t considered notable until they’re given at least a genus designation <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per RebeccaGreen. Just because someone has not bothered to create an article yet about another notable subject does not mean an article on another notable subject should be deleted. Who decides the order of notability and the order of article creation? If we are to go that route a lot of articles will be pulled down. There is significant and in-depth coverage from several independent and reliable sources. This article therefore satisfies the general notability guidelines and merits a stand alone article. Reading the nominator's rationale and examining the article for myself, I have so far seen no evidence that this article fails GNG or should be deleted because of WP:NOT or any policy for that matter. I don't like it or what about X are not good reasons for delete. Tamsier (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.