Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species of Allosaurus


 * 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. There is consensus to keep. Whether or not to merge the content elsewhere is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the article's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, etc. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Species of Allosaurus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Allosaurus lucasi has been recently described, and Carpenter (1998) notes that Felch discovered an Allosaurus the size of the Epanterias holotype and Saurophaganax at the Allosaurus type locality, and discussion of Allosaurus species is mentioned in Allosaurus article. Extrapolaris (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support it's not only largely unnecessary but also wholly inadequate. Surely we don't want to suggest the possibility of eight valid species of Allosaurus?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is this listed as an AfD for "PageName"? I assume this is meant to be for Species of Allosaurus?  Tera TIX  02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nb. I fixed the errors in this nomination herein (diff) and on the article page (diff). North America1000 03:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the premise of this ADF is not adequate, this should be merged with Allosaurus at most, not deleted. All the information is relevant, the question is just where to place it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a good summary of the supposed species of Allosaurus. A section in the main article would be better to start from scratch.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 04:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much easier to use the text present in this article and just cut it down, it already has the sources and links. Remember, someone has to actually do the work, and I doubt anyone will volunteer to rewrite this from scratch any time soon (though that might have been the hypothetically best solution), so we have to be realistic and take what we can get. In any case, none of the arguments presented so far are valid reasons for deletion; the information has to be present on Wikipedia in some form or another, and there are no notability or reliability issues. And for the sake of saving revision history, this GA should be redirected, not deleted (just like what happened to species of Psittacosaurus). FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another point, this article was split off from the main Allosaurus article way back in 2007 when articles were split left and right because of byte size and consequent loading issues, which is not much of a problem with modern Internet. Dinosaur articles written today would easily have accommodated the same amount of text, so I see it more as two parts that have to be put back together. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyways, merge or delete, it should not exist as it currently does as a separate article of its own. Also, cutting down what we have won't work, the issue is that it's an insufficient summary of the situation altogether. Cutting down would quite likely make this even worse.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A start could be relocating usable text from here to the Allosaurus article, while making sure it is not redundant. Then when that is done, the species article can just be redirected, as happened to Species of Psittacosaurus. No point in deleting ten years of revision history for no apparent reason. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with FunkMonk. Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, because this could be merged and redirected to Allosaurus. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep with no impediment to merging through normal editing. I'm not really seeing the argument, or the benefit, of deletion.  There are a few vague claims like the page is "inadequate" without really explaining why.  I'm seeing no recent discussion on the talk page or attempt to fix the perceived problems in the history.  So why not do those things?  I'm at a loss to understand the policy rationale being invoked here. SpinningSpark 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – There are no qualifiers in the nomination that demonstrate a need for deletion; comes across as a merge proposal. Better off discussed on the article talk page. North America1000 13:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:54, 2 September 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.
 * Keep without prejudice per SpinningSpark. James500 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – per Spark and FunkMonk. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfDing a GA article? If there is any scope for discussion here, it is regarding a merge.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - Reading the above discussion, it's obvious outright deletion is a poor choice, but I still think that there's absolutely no reason to have this poor article separated from the main Allosaurus article.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 22:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic is entirely valid and the article perfectly adequate and a GA as well. It could be merged with Allosaurus but that is an FA and I doubt the folk there will want to incorporate the material into their polished article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now – clearly straight-up deletion is not justified. A merge is a possibility, but there's no harm in an extended discussion on the talk page rather than a hasty decision at an AfD.  Tera TIX  13:28, 9 September 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.