- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Monuran trackway
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Monuran trackway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability; lacks reliable sources Kent G. Budge ( talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article is a stub created by a user no longer active at Wikipedia. It is nothing but a description and link to a single image allegedly from the Library of Congress. The actual image link appears to be to a blog. I can find no mention of "Monuran trackway" at Google Scholar, nor does "Monuran" "Robledos" bring up anything (the trackway is claimed to be in the Robledos Mountains.) I'd propose a merge with Monura, but nothing in this stub is properly sourced, so deleting altogether seems in order. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Mangoe ( talk) 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete This appears to be an article on a single specimen with one extremely marginal reference. I'd be hard-pressed to find that notable even for something prominent, but for an extinct order about which we record nothing but a few sentences, I'm just not seeing it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This may be referring to this specimen. The article name appears to be rather generic, but the context seems to be the same, with the same location and ichnofossil name. Hog Farm Bacon 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This seems the right place for this information, if properly sourced.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- The big problem with this isn't sourcing: it's that there's no sign of significant notability. People write papers about single or small groups of specimens all the time; nothing wrong with that, but this is the bread and butter of scholarly publishing. If it were a case of "everyone in the field knows about these fossil tracks," that would go some way towards making this a notable thing. I've looked at the paper presented here, and it doesn't appear to mention this particular specimen; based on another paper I saw, I'm inclined to view the article under discussion as a piece of original research interpreting this track as being that of a creature in the order in question. Mangoe ( talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete As it currently stands, its lacks notability. Also the designation, "Monuran trackway," is informal, generic, and apparently was created by the article's originator as it does not apply to either a specific locality or specimen of note. If this trace fossil is included in Wikipedia, it should be either in an article under its scientific name, "Tonganoxichnus" or possibly become part of Prehistoric Trackways National Monument. Paul H. ( talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Move to Tonganoxichnus. Abyssal ( talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't think there is a good merge/redirect target, the article sourcing is poor, and notability is questionable. // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 29 September 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Monuran trackway
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Monuran trackway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability; lacks reliable sources Kent G. Budge ( talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article is a stub created by a user no longer active at Wikipedia. It is nothing but a description and link to a single image allegedly from the Library of Congress. The actual image link appears to be to a blog. I can find no mention of "Monuran trackway" at Google Scholar, nor does "Monuran" "Robledos" bring up anything (the trackway is claimed to be in the Robledos Mountains.) I'd propose a merge with Monura, but nothing in this stub is properly sourced, so deleting altogether seems in order. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Mangoe ( talk) 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete This appears to be an article on a single specimen with one extremely marginal reference. I'd be hard-pressed to find that notable even for something prominent, but for an extinct order about which we record nothing but a few sentences, I'm just not seeing it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This may be referring to this specimen. The article name appears to be rather generic, but the context seems to be the same, with the same location and ichnofossil name. Hog Farm Bacon 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This seems the right place for this information, if properly sourced.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- The big problem with this isn't sourcing: it's that there's no sign of significant notability. People write papers about single or small groups of specimens all the time; nothing wrong with that, but this is the bread and butter of scholarly publishing. If it were a case of "everyone in the field knows about these fossil tracks," that would go some way towards making this a notable thing. I've looked at the paper presented here, and it doesn't appear to mention this particular specimen; based on another paper I saw, I'm inclined to view the article under discussion as a piece of original research interpreting this track as being that of a creature in the order in question. Mangoe ( talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete As it currently stands, its lacks notability. Also the designation, "Monuran trackway," is informal, generic, and apparently was created by the article's originator as it does not apply to either a specific locality or specimen of note. If this trace fossil is included in Wikipedia, it should be either in an article under its scientific name, "Tonganoxichnus" or possibly become part of Prehistoric Trackways National Monument. Paul H. ( talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Move to Tonganoxichnus. Abyssal ( talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't think there is a good merge/redirect target, the article sourcing is poor, and notability is questionable. // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 29 September 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.