Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigonosaurus

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 of the debate was Speedy keep per nom's withdrawal, withdrawal of all delete votes, & comments.. --Hetar 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigonosaurus

~~Hoax dinosaur. On first appearance looks genuine, but Google turns up no reliable sources. If exists(or existed) it's unverifiable.~~ Changed to Keep after sources & interwiki link provided. Apologize for any toes I stepped here. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. As above --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless it can be verified.. Keep, references added. PJM 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This author has caused a lot of problems with incorrect information in various dinosaur articles. Fan1967 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not so sure on this one. A couple google hits seem to show this as a new classification. Fan1967 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. Recently describe "new" dinosaur, looks like the Dutch Wikipedia has a longer article. A problem may be verification as there seems to be only one paper published so far.--blue520 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I really do not think this is a hoax. Firstly, assume good faith on the part of the creator of the article, User:Elmo12456. He contributes a lot on dinosaurs and added this article because it was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing. It was added to that list on the 27th April 2006 by User:Dracontes, who again contributes an awful lot on dinosaurs and is also a native speaker of Portugeuse. The journal referenced by the Dutch Wikipedia article is Arquivos do Museu Nacional, a Brazilian journal. Dracontes would be able to read that. RupertMillard (Talk) 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Please do not assume (standard) good faith on the part of User:Elmo12456. Nearly every contribution written by this user has had to be re-written. This user's contributions need to be regularly monitored; despite his long list of contributions to dinosaur articles, only around four have remained unmodified.--Firsfron 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per RupertMillard. -- Kjkolb 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Brand new diosaur that hasn't percolated through google yet. Use the literature, not google! See [1].Dinoguy2 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since shown not to be a hoax. However, I can't fault the nominator here, as we can't take chances on hoaxes, and we do see plenty of those. Good research all around, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one's real, although so new it's pretty obscure. Author who created this WP article did in fact create a mistaken or hoax article, so it's nice to see someone was watching.--Firsfron 21:58, 1 May 2006 (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.