Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina dromaeosaurid


 * 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 delete. Doesn't seem mergeable. ansh 666 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

North Carolina dromaeosaurid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnamed, only roughly classified, singular fragmentary fossil (a single tooth) that does not merit an article. (Also see Articles for deletion/Washington theropod - exactly the same issue.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * i think it should stay till named. It looks intresting enough to talk about it especily at they Hype of JWFK people will want to know more about dinosaurus so yeah.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for subject being non encyclopaedic (yet). The text is mostly about the dental record. Ouch. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete on the same basis as Washington State Theropod, fragmentary pieces of bone not yet referred to any animal nor used to erect a new taxa should not get their own article. By that logic we should have millions of these articles, with another one being created each time a palaeontologist finds a fossil and describes it. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reference in Cretaceous Research is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How so? It's certainly a solidification of verifiability, but just being the subject of a scientific palaeontology paper doesn't establish notability. Just looking at this month I would imagine this would mean that these perinatal hadrosaurs, this large pterosaur , and these large theropod tracks should all also have stub articles. None of them are Cretaceous Research of course, but they're all published papers, which seems to be what you're going off of.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Primary scientific research reports of fossils are WP:MILL. Somebody else in the field (or the media) needs to care.  For that matter, it hasn't even been formally published in Cretaceous Research yet - the citation is to a pre-publication release to subscribers. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. By the logic of the creator any single fragment of a fossil that has any sort of unique fact about it should get an article with a single sentence (see the examples in my reply above). That's unsustainable and doesn't help anybody. This one doesn't even have the argument of an awkward merge like the Washington State theropod does, it's a very simple incorporation into the Dromaeosauridae article just like the deleted Australia spinosaur article.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - at a minimum this is WP:TOOSOON. The paper reporting it hasn't even been formally published yet.  A sizable number of scientific papers either are completely ignored by their field, or are deemed to be flawed and are never accepted.  Initial publication of a finding is no indication that it is authentic and noteworthy.  A good rule of thumb for scientific findings is that a research paper needs to be formally published, then it has to be accepted as noteworthy and likely accurate (or at least possible) by the rest of the field, as evinced by summary and citation in reviews or the introductions of later papers written by a researcher independent of the author to indicate a finding is notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - until this fossil is assigned a name, or, at the very least, until the paper that found the tooth is released, this article should not be on Wikipedia. While there is information that could render this more than a stub (ie the fact that it fills a gap in the taxonomy of Dromaeosauridae), the paper hasn't actually been published yet. Until it is (or, preferably, until the specimen is actually assigned a name), then the findings aren't exactly very reliable. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, after the paper is actually published, I'm also fine with adding it to the Dromaeosauridae article, since it can add useful information to its taxonomy. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow consideration of the late "merge" suggestion to Dromaeosauridae.
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. We do not create organism articles based on a single find that has been analyzed in-depth in a secondary manner.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into dromaeosaur. We have had discussions about such unnamed animals, and agreed they should be treated at the article of the family level. No reason to have articles like this, and we should probably make some clear guidelines at the dinosaur project. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As of now, neither source for the article hasbeen formally published, so neither is a WP:RS. That makes none of it WP:V, so there is thus nothing to merge.  This will change when the article is formally published, but what, if anything, to mention on the dromaeosaur page can be discussed at that time through the normal editing process. Agricolae (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with dromaeosauridae. It seems unlikely that some would want specific details on the North Carolina version of this dinosaur. Vorbee (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge what? - what in that article is WP:V? Agricolae (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. There's nothing to merge as of now, and this isn't a likely redirect term either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping on this as well. It's not even well written, we'd have to re-do the whole coverage of the subject anyways. When it's validly published it can be put on the page Appalachia (Mesozoic), written from scratch.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:15, 30 July 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.