The result was merge to List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS, even less notable than Big John (dinosaur). There are only a handful of reliable sources covering the skull, which are all pre sale hype from around the same time in 2015, which fails WP:SUSTAINED. There is no follow-up coverage, which implies that the specimen failed to sell. At least for Big John, it was the 3rd most expensive dinosaur skeleton ever sold, what exactly is notable about this specimen? There is already an entry in the "Planned to be auctioned" section of the List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction article covering this specimen. At best, this article deserves to be redirected there. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Over the years I have looked at lots of Triceratops fossils, but this is unquestionably the largest Triceratops skull I have ever seen. The claim of "largest skull ever" for Dragon King is a promotional claim that was meant to hype up the (seemingly failed) sale, and is unverified. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm the author of the page - there is no COI here as I am not trying to sell the skull privately, nor hype it up pre-auction. It is already owned privately and I don't know of any plans to re-sell it. I also do not own it. It deserves a page purely because it is the biggest skull ever found - bigger than Big John (if you look at the lengths). Guinness probably weren't aware of this skull when Big John claimed the title. This is fact and surely that is the kind of thing that is useful to wiki and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Pittman, it’s difficult to ascertain whether it is actually the largest. ”To my knowledge, the up-to-date dataset one would need to know this does not exist in the peer-reviewed scientific journal article format that scientists use.”Thus, I support merging but without referencing this. Perhaps saying it is of significantly above-average size would be a good way to go about it. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS, even less notable than Big John (dinosaur). There are only a handful of reliable sources covering the skull, which are all pre sale hype from around the same time in 2015, which fails WP:SUSTAINED. There is no follow-up coverage, which implies that the specimen failed to sell. At least for Big John, it was the 3rd most expensive dinosaur skeleton ever sold, what exactly is notable about this specimen? There is already an entry in the "Planned to be auctioned" section of the List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction article covering this specimen. At best, this article deserves to be redirected there. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Over the years I have looked at lots of Triceratops fossils, but this is unquestionably the largest Triceratops skull I have ever seen. The claim of "largest skull ever" for Dragon King is a promotional claim that was meant to hype up the (seemingly failed) sale, and is unverified. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm the author of the page - there is no COI here as I am not trying to sell the skull privately, nor hype it up pre-auction. It is already owned privately and I don't know of any plans to re-sell it. I also do not own it. It deserves a page purely because it is the biggest skull ever found - bigger than Big John (if you look at the lengths). Guinness probably weren't aware of this skull when Big John claimed the title. This is fact and surely that is the kind of thing that is useful to wiki and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Pittman, it’s difficult to ascertain whether it is actually the largest. ”To my knowledge, the up-to-date dataset one would need to know this does not exist in the peer-reviewed scientific journal article format that scientists use.”Thus, I support merging but without referencing this. Perhaps saying it is of significantly above-average size would be a good way to go about it. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)