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. This article has never been up for AFD before, but now it should be clear that extreme work is needed. Those in support of keeping it are now tasked with developing this into a policy-compliant article. While reviewing WP:DEL#REASON and WP:IINFO I find that there is no compelling reason to delete at present. JodyB _talk 14:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of dinosaur specimens[edit]

List of dinosaur specimens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is problematic in that its implied scope arguably includes every dinosaur specimen ever described (every dinosaur is known from at least one specimen), and would need to be be orders of magnitude longer than List of dinosaur genera to be anywhere near "complete". It was previously titled List of notable dinosaur specimens, which introduced POV issues (notable according to whom?), but even the current title and list is a subjective exercise in pointing to arbitrary interesting fossils, contrary to the objective list selection criteria and WP:SALAT which discourages lists too broad in scope. Most of the specimens in the list are redirects, not stand-alone articles, and the list as a whole suffers from biases of geography and lack of sources. Granted the list is currently short, but even now, and should it ever be expanded, it is basically an indiscriminate list, contrary to WP:IINFO. There is some support for turning this list into a category at Talk:WikiProject Dinosaur, (similar to Category:Specific fossil specimens) which I tentatively support, but only for specimens that have designated articles, not redirects, as again, since at least one if not dozens of unique specimen numbers or nicknamed fossils can be assigned to every dinosaur known, the category could easily become indiscriminate and redundant to Category:Dinosaurs --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the above statements. I also want to point out that the last edit made by the original creator was back in 2011. Since then, no real effort has been made to expand this article even as categories have been added to improve its exposure. Kobuu (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia already defines notability, as this should be titled, a notable dinosaur specimen will have sufficient press coverage to meet Wikipedia'snotability standards, Sue, Sophie, etc., to meet Wikipedia noablity standards. Not expanding an article is not listed on reasons to delete an article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor execution of a questionable idea. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I want to point out that there are certain arguments that are just not very good arguments when it comes to debating keeping an article. "Nobody has worked on it for a while" is one such argument. Another is that it is poorly written or poorly executed. These are arguments for clean up (grab a shovel) not deletion (take a break). Regarding this list, I'm not sure if this can work as a list and probably it cannot. There are over 1 million fossils on record at http://fossilworks.org. Obviously, not all are dinosaurs. But there will be many and it would be tough to decide which are notable enough to be on this list. Please note that some dinosaurs already have their own articles regarding the fossils available, such as Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. See also Category:Specific fossil specimens and Category:Lists of animal specimens. Hopefully there can be an informed discussion prior to this list getting deleted. Gaff (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the assumption that Wikipedia's existing notability standards are not usable to decide which dinosaurs to include. Why not? MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The question isn't "which dinosaurs to include", but rather "does each and every fossil specimen need to be listed on a list like this". Consider that we have a List_of_fossil_primates. That makes sense, since not all primates are extinct. We also have List of dinosaur genera. Now take a random animal off this list, such as Amargatitanis and you see that it has three fossil specimens associated with it. Is there any real value added by taking those three specimen and putting them on this List of dinosaur specimens? Maybe better, just leave the list of dinosaur genera and if somebody is interested in the specimens of that dinosaur, they can read about it in its article. So, this list is kind of redundant. --Gaff (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there articles about them in the popular press, like Sue, Sophie, or the 17th century find that is in dozens of books? I bet not. MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a very good point. Category:Specific fossil specimens does not really give the same information as neatly. By the way, Sue has an article. I have no idea why Sophie the Stegosaurus is a red-link. --Gaff (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can easily retitle and populate with famous (notable) fossils based only on Wikipedia guideleins for notability. See my suggestions on the talk page, also. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, all problems listed can be solved by editing, such as limiting to only specimens notable enough for their own article. Siuenti (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept and expanded, the list may require vigilance to maintain and/or clear statement of scope and limitations. As the existing list shows, obscure fossils like TMP88.121.39 and well known fossils like Sue both arguably meet notability (the former being discussed in reliable primary literature, the latter in popular literature). Many articles and/or accompanying press releases suggest or explicitly state some claim of importance or noteworthiness: e.g. "this discovery is the (oldest/youngest/largest/most complete) fossil of (taxon/life stage of taxon) ever discovered from the (upper/lower/geological stage) of (continent/country/geologic formation/fossil pit) and improves our knowledge of (biological process)". I would be fine with keeping and overhauling the list as long as some unambiguous inclusion standards were implemented, rather than any specimen that has any interesting aspect to any editor, which as above may lead to an indiscriminate arbitrary listing of fossils that exist. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Preserve. Notable is implied, as it is for lists in general, so that keeps it a quite manageable size, not that sheer length is a valid reason for deletion (only for splitting). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree that lists are inherently notable. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List has been essentially abandoned at four items for years. Fails WP:LC items 2 and 5. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.