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. Notability and content are not under dispute but the translation seems to be a problem. I would be concerned that draftification would bring the article out of the eye of those who might improve it. Instead, tagging and/or bringing to the attention of relevant WikiProjects may be a better way forward. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 17:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satsumautsunomiyaryu[edit]

Satsumautsunomiyaryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. There are plenty of refs and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mccapra. No valid reason for deletion given by nominator. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I see no problem with the content of the article per se, or the fact that it may have been machine-translated (rather good quality if so). However, it appears that the specimen has not actually been classified yet - it has not received a binomial (genus and species remain unassigned). See the article here [1], unfortunately in Japanese only. Under these circumstances, I don't believe we should have an article about the fossil. Suggest moving to draft until the taxon has been properly described. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登 太郎 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登 太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This seems to be notable although it could certainly be improved. For all those editors suggesting that it be draftified, unless someone is committing to improvement, this notable topic is likely to languish until it's deleted as a draft. Better to keep it live and allow those who wish to easily discover it and work on improving it in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. DCsansei (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly Move to "List of informally named non-dinosaur fossil reptiles" or such a page? Japan have multiple undescribed reptile fossils, such as another plesiosaur Hobetsu-araki-ryu, Since there are many unnamed materials of pterosaurs, plesiosaurs etc from the world, I assume it is reasonable to create page like List of informally named dinosaurs. While this and Satsuma pterosaurs are pretty important for Japanese paleontology topics, but sadly to be honest I don't think it would be enough notable in English Wikipedia until described. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, shouldn't page title be "Satsuma-Utsunomiya-Ryu" instead? See List of informally named dinosaurs for example, name translations are shown like "Futaba-ryu" or "Katsuyama-ryu" there. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2024 (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.