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The result was withdrawn; the article has been deleted at the request of the author. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeocursor

[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. An anonymous editor posted on the talk page that "Archaeocursor" isn't real. It's an April Fool's Day Joke that started on a Polish forum dedicated to dinosaurs, here (in Polish): http://www.forum.dinozaury.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3927 For that reason, this page should be deleted. The page was blanked, then tagged for speedy-deletion by user:Dinoguy2. If it is a hoax, it is not sufficiently blatant to qualify under the strict wording of the CSD criteria. I have declined the speedy-deletion but am posting it here for further investigation and resolution. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 08:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: A search of google books and google scholar shows no use of the name "Archaeocursor" and no descriptive paper by Sereno in the journal Kirtlandia (which has not published an issue this year at all. It may need to be kept as a page on the April fools joke if the name gets traction in the web/media.--Kev min § 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it does appear to be the case that this is an escaped April Fool's Day gag. Bahariasauroidea needs to go on the same grounds. Note for future gagmeisters: if Paul Sereno, a past master of publicity, was publishing a new genus of feathered dinosaur, I doubt it would be in Kirtlandia, and there would certainly be a press conference. ;) J. Spencer (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Not only does Kirtlandia not have a recent issue out, Sereno's website also lists no such sensational discovery – neither on his publications page, nor on his discoveries page. If the hoax gets sufficient traction in the media to become notable (for which I see no signs yet), we should then write an article on the hoax, not keep an article that is itself a hoax. --Lambiam 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry.. I was really excited when I saw this.. It is apparently too good to be true.. Rnnsh (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2011 (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.