Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Parirau ataroa

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Ə XPLICIT 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Parirau ataroa

 * – (View MfD)

Name is a nomen nudum found in an unpublished pre-print by indefinitely banned user (Note: I don't think that the IP who created the draft is Falconfly) Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does not sound like a reason to delete a draftpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete nomina nudua taxa fail the GNG. Wikipedia should not have articles on specimens that have been given fake names by amateur non-palaeontologists in unreviewed pre-prints that are almost certainly never going to be published. Pre-prints are un-reviewed self published sources and therefore cannot be considered reliable, especially in this case. Falconfly has a long history of pushing crank ideas, including that a mammal only known from teeth (Ichthyoconodon) was capable of powered flight, even commissioning art to push this theory See the ANI thread. Falconfly has no professional expertise as a palaeontologist and therefore his pre-print is worth about as much as the work of Dave Peters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "fail the GNG" is not relevant to MfD. MfD does not test notability.  The draft may not be destined for a standalone article, but for inclusion in a broader article.  Drafting is a place to write stuff that may be substantially changed in the drafting process.  Testing for notability is premature for a draft.  Similarly, unreliable sources are not reason to delete; instead unreliable sources should be replaced or removed.  Pre-prints may become prints, which is a good reason to allow them in draftspace.  If you want to talk serious details, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology, which you started, is a good idea.  If a consensus there developed that this is rubbish, then I would support deletion here.  At the moment, everything here is premature.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in draftspace. It is fine for this article to stay in draftspace. But I will be watching it and taking action as soon as it shows any signs of entering mainspace. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The author Carlos Albuquerque is best known for saying on his personal blog https://ichthyoconodon.wordpress.com that deinonychosaurs could fly, and then according to this he attacked people who disagreed, who attacked in return, then he claimed he was a victim of character assassination  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in draftspace, exactly per SmokeyJoe. 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in draftspace. It belongs there. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the suggested deletion reasons all go to notability or predicted notability, which is not on the table for a draft at MfD. This is not AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Notability is not an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.