Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicerosaurus

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unicerosaurus

Unicerosaurus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A made up name from want-to be scientist Carl Baugh who has no scientific education and states dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth while claiming it is only 6000 years old. This has no place of wikipedia. Someone whose pseudoscience is rejected even by creationists should not have an article on every made up term he wishes people to repeat. PatriotBible 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. While "Unicerosaurus" is an invalid dinosaur, the name does appear frequently on various lists of dinosaurs. Wikipedia:Complete bollocks does not apply, as this information is verifiable. Didn't anyone even check the reference which is listed!? Here are some professional paleontological sites, examples where this dinosaur genera is listed:here, here, here, more can be listed if needed. Please don't nominate an article for deletion when the material can be verified by clicking a simple link already in the article. Also, I'll note deleting this article would leave a red link on Wikipedia's List of dinosaurs, which is a Featured List, representing "what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia [...] reviewed [...] for usefulness, completeness, accuracy, [and] neutrality. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Your examples aren't good. The AOL member page is hardly a WP:RS and more interestingly this link and this link call it a nomen nudum. (I'll spare you quoting what's on the nomen nudum page.) Hardly a reason for keeping it. As it is a nomen nudum, once deleted via afd it should also be unlinked from the List of dinosaurs (which notes it is a fish not a dinosaur). Please provide a definition cited by a scientific journal. PatriotBible 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My examples are just fine. The "AOL Members Page" just happens to be the web site of noted paleontologist and nomenclature expert George Olshevsky. The fact that "Unicerosaurus" is a nomen nudum is already noted in the article. Also, where is the policy which states an article must have "a definition cited in a scientific journal"?Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You have three lists that tell us the term is hollow of a definition. Read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which states "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." A list saying the term is hollow of value does not cut it. Please give use books and papers about the terms as the policy states.PatriotBible 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Hate to say it, but an AOL page is going to be frowned upon for the same reason a Myspace page is frowned upon - largely because AOL's reputation precedes it. --Dennisthe2 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is a guideline, not a policy, actually. Additionally, Wikipedia's article on neologism indicates it's for "newly coined" words. As the name "Unicerosaurus" has existed for at least 20 years (see links above), it's hardly a neologism. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • It's "hardly a neologism" and yet you can't provide any books or journal mentions. Follow the guideline and get a source about the term. Get a source taht tells us what it is. PatriotBible 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I think that's enough. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • While I'm sure Olshevsky has done his research, it would be nice if he'd provide some actual citations, especially for the nomina nuda. As I mentioned below, a lot of the nomina nuda he lists on that page should probably not be considered as such, having been named in things like newspapers, etc. which the ICZN does not consider valid sources, and having not been properly named in the first place with something along the lines of gen. nov., or anything showing clear intent to erect a scientific name. Dinoguy2 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See my !vote below. Yes, his examples don't work, but work even better given circumstances. Trust me: read the article. --Dennisthe2 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to go against the religion my Christian faith falls under, and say Strong Delete with prejudice. Not only does otherwise acceptable research state this doesn't exist, the dinosaurla.com URL also declares this as having been removed from the list in the first place, per the reasons listed from PatriotBible. AOL is about as reliable a resource as MySpace - that is, absolutely not. I too call WP:BOLLOCKS. Please make this go away. --Dennisthe2 09:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Strong Keep, and throwing in an apology for my comments - I should know better than to do this when tired. This article should be kept for the same reason it is being deleted, paradoxically: the article explains the name as utter balls! --Dennisthe2 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The article clearly states the animal is invalid and undescribed. It clearly states the it has been rejected by mainstream science. We have an article which discusses Flat Earth; this article is in many ways quite similar: both present a now-discredited view. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Good example. Flat Earth has serious scientific sources (journals/books). This does not. Keep Flat Earth-- with good sources and scholarly mentions and delete those that don't. PatriotBible 10:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• An article stating the term is devoid of a definition and usage? How is that relevant? If its not used or has no value why care/keep it? PatriotBible 10:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be kept, in my opinion, to demonstrate precisely why it is not used - or at least, considered harmful by mainstream science. The article does precisely this. --Dennisthe2 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia is here to inform, which also means to highlight non-valid terms too. See Brontosaurus, which was actually a chimera. Similarly Piltdown man and Flat earth too. Cas Liber 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to nitpick, Brontosaurus was not a chimera, it was a junior subjective synonym of Apatosaurus. The whole "wrong head" story has nothing to do with the naming issue, and is very misleading, since 99% of dinosaur mounts to this day invent speculative body parts (especially skulls) based on known relatives to fill in the gaps of incomplete skeletons. Dinoguy2 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're comparing Piltdown man fake, an event that triggered several academic inquires to a term never used in any academic work or by any academic? Also the flat earth article has several academic refutations and sources. What about this one where are the "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" — not books and papers that use the term"? PatriotBible 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is all relative; sure the others caused a much bigger stir but in the end the basic issue is the same; a term which has no validity but there still lies a small story behind it and on the net the term snuck into lists of valid creatures. I have seen rumours and bits of knowledge get blown out of proportion before (I have looked into some other issues with Banksias and fungi - read Tom Volk's page on Hygrocybe conica to see how one small event of quetionable validity in 1930s china sent ripples through modern texts on fungi. This is why I'm all for keeping the info. Wikipedia is a reference body on everything not just valid things. Cas Liber 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense, and non-notable. Edison 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. which part of the article is nonsense? 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Edison, Science is a process and many the value of much is increased by showing the false leads. To ignore these is to reduce science to dogma. Sure, two years ago this may have been deleted but the dinosaur section is pretty well developed now and can't be said to give undue weight to this given the thoroughness of what else is around. Maybe some of these other articles need to be discussed again.Cas Liber 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Science is a process. The examples/analogies you gave are notable. This on the other hand is not notable. For example, give a WP:RS for the Baugh claim. I get 14 hits at yahoo and none meet WP:RS. PatriotBible 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. All nomina nuda are hollow of definition. By definition, a nomem nudum is any old name that's been made up and/or bandied about carelessly in the literature. Technically, I believe a name has to be followed by gen et sp. nov. to indicate the author is trying to coin a new name, and then if that name is not described properly, it becomes a nomen nudum. A lot of nomina nuda listed on the List of Dinosaurs are not real nomina nuda, they're nicknames that have been picked up by the press and included carelessly in genera lists. That said, Wikiproject dinosaurs has agreed to include both formal and informal nomina nuda in its lists, and this decision means any old name included by any old lunatic in any old list. Including this one. Dinoguy2 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please provide WP:RS of the term and its creator, and show notability. PatriotBible 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is my belief that fossils which have been preserved for 65+ million years are notable. You are free to disagree, but I sure hope this article isn't deleted, because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team has worked hard to prepare articles for all dinosaur genera, as dinosaurs are perhaps more encyclopedic than the list of Pokemon characters or whatever which proliferate on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Instead of a false dichotomy name the scientists has asserted it is a fossil 65+ million years old. PatriotBible 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Referenced in the literature, appropriate citations in the article. The validity of the term is adequately explained. Tevildo 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Citations of it referenced are where? Specifically, name the places it appears in literature.PatriotBible 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there's really no valid reason for deletion, plus we need the article for clarification of the term which it describes. --Dudo2 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a made up term by a creationist! It doesn't have a definition! Scientists DO NOT use the term! PatriotBible 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, this is exactly why it should be kept - it explains it as utter balls, and declares it accordingly as something that should be rejected. Wikipedia should also be for explaining bogosity - e.g., this article - and why it is bogus. Science, after all, requires the incorrect findings and unsuccessful experiments to be proven and documented just as much as the correct findings and successful experiments. --Dennisthe2 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Avgodectes is a made up term by a person who espouses extreme minority theories, though non-religious. Other scientists have not used the name in serious literature so far. There are literally hundreds of cases like this. Just because the person who named this particular dubious, undescribed specimen is a creationist should have no bearing on the situation unless the article itself espouses creationist beliefs. If the guy who made up the term Tyrannosaurus had been a creationist, it would not make that term any less valid, only the interpretation of it. Dinoguy2 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The same could be said for Baramin. I'm as opposed to creationism as anybody, but I don't think that trying to expunge creationist terms from Wikipedia is the right way to fight it. Tevildo 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per all above. Mgiganteus1 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the arguments against this boil down to: it hasn't been used scientifically, and it was named by a creationist. The second point is more easily dealt with: it's always better to expose errors than to cover them up. The first point has some merit, in that as a nomen nudum there's not much that has been said or can be said. Paleontology is littered with names that aren't in use (at least half of what Bob Bakker has coined and all of the Stephen Pickering names), misidentifications (Shuvosaurus, anyone?), and combinations (Aachenosaurus, Succinodon). I think that the merits of showing Unicerosaurus as an error outweigh its uselessness as a pointless name. J. Spencer 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if it was just a name made-up by a pseudoscientist and included in some fringe newsletters, that wouldn't be good enough; but the terms seems to have been used in other places as well, and was important enough that a geologist wrote a paper to expose it as a mistake. While it is obviously not piltdown man on the importance scale, it does seem to establish notability, and it would be helpful to inform people that it does not actually exist. Tarinth 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to nominator - To explain my vote, I'm maintaining keep for the exact reason you are requesting a deletion. Right now, the problem I'm having is that it's a bit deceptive: whereas your nomination states that it is by all effects a bogus term created under pseudoscience and thusly you assert it should be deleted as such, the article states pretty much the same thing, except that it asserts that it should be kept as such. I honestly fail to see the logic in deleting a term for the exact same reasons it states it should be kept. Care to explain? --Dennisthe2 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a made up term without any sources. The article is much different than it was before. There was no scholarly comments on his "dinosaur fossil." As such without proper academic sourcing it should be removed. Review the article in the state it was when I made the nomination; two personal webpages and a "journal?" without page numbers nor properly footnoted. Hence, a highly suspect article. If you fail to "see the logic" then be sure to "see" how the article was and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. PatriotBible 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then consider this: right now, it's less important to consider how the article was, and very important to consider what the article is as of now - and will note the range you cite is covering a period of time ranging about a month and a half with twelve intermediate changes bypassed by the article history link. Just because it was bad doesn't mean it can't change. In its current state, it is, in short, not deletable in my opinion: as I write this, there is a link to Dinosauria.com, two published works referencing ISBN numbers, and two pending such numbers, coming up to five reliable sources. I'm certainly in agreement that personal web pages and blogs in particular are downright horrible for sources (and certainly aren't reliable sources. My vote, however, remains as Keep however, and even more so, as the article, in its current state, has been improved, and at least in my opinion more than meets WP standards. --Dennisthe2 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think PatriotBible's acknowledging (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the article has been improved since the Deletion tag. At the time, there wasn't much to it. J. Spencer 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PatriotBible 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But even simple "citation needed" tags could have been placed on the article, if all that was needed was proper citation and a little formatting. There didn't need to be an AFD. I'll note "citation needed" templates were placed, but only well after the AFD was in progress. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Carl Baugh article. This doesn't need its own article. "Nomen nudum," by the way, doesn't mean its bogus, it just means it is not attached to a taxon. I'm having a hard time understanding why dinosaur folks want to keep this, as it may eventually lead to having to include articles on all the creationist creatures imagined not to be ancient. KP Botany 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have recently e-mailed some folks for further info and further primary sources on this animal, and am planning a major expansion. No sense in merging this article into another and then having to bud it off again in a couple of weeks, right? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fake Comment-Sorta Now be good Firsfron and stop calling it an animal. Are there really that many sources outside of creationist "literature?" Or is it in code you've uncovered with OR? Peudo-Real Comment I would appreciate if people would stop nominating articles on fake topics for deletion because they are about fakes, well, at least until Piltdown Man is deleted, at least. I bet my neighborhood Bigfoot has an article already, Abominable Snowman, Lochness Monster, too. And, actually, doesn't Lochy have its own nomen nudum? That's taxonomically tricky, though, should its article be titled by its nomen nudum? PS It was nice to be able to post without previewing on the names of all these pseudo articles, apparently my cryptozoology is still up to snuff. KP Botany 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article has improved since the nomination. The popularity of Carl Baugh's paper shows the notability of this subject. --RebSkii 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - call it bullocks, but if it's notable bullocks, it stays (as long as it's noted as such, which it is). Does that mean we can't have Hobbit or Leviathan anymore on here (one is fictional, the other religious). -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:30, 12 January 2007 (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.