Satsumayokuryu : - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology , Organisms ,  and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors.   Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.  However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome.  Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.  Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} .  * Keep .  I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here.  If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page.  (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way).  If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to.  The sources aren’t brilliant but they seem to amount to a GNG pass.  Mccapra ( talk ) 16:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) changing my ! vote after reading other editors’ comments Mccapra ( talk ) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply.  Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens ), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable).  Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon.  Plantdrew ( talk ) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are no particular issues with the content of the article.  山登 太郎 ( talk ) 06:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登 太郎 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep Once again, being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic.  DCsansei ( talk ) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as for Satsumautsunomiyaryu and as per Plantdrew.  This needs a valid classification before it can be a species article.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs .  Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 11:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean "redirect" and not "move"?  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah yeah, will fix.  Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and move to List of informally named pterosaurs where it belongs.  FunkMonk ( talk ) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - My preferred WP:ATD here is merge and redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Plantdrew and Elmidae : Would this be acceptable?  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine by me - can be split off when formally descirbed and sufficient material available.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be OK.  Plantdrew ( talk ) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and move to Satsuma pterosaur (薩摩翼竜).  Asahi Shimbun articles establish notability.  Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Problem is if there is another case of undescribed pterosaur that have page though.  Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of informally named pterosaurs A fossil specimen being covered by newspaper articles is not really good enough to have a standalone article, but enough to be covered in the list.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Again, this article deserves a sufficiently independent article.  山登 太郎 ( talk ) 07:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striken - you only get one ! vote, though you may continue to comment and reply... up to the point of WP:BLUDGEON .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry.  I'll be careful.  山登 太郎 ( talk ) 23:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically in English Wikipedia undescribed taxa mostly does not have own article.  "Nurosaurus" for example, despite somewhat well-known and have decent materials, does not have own article and just have name in List of informally named dinosaurs .  Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 07:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's trying to destroy my article.  Please take a look at his posting history.  The history of the attack remains.  山登 太郎 ( talk ) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I present my editing history here .  Regarding the request to delete Satoshi Utsunomiya's article, it was just my misunderstanding, but other than that, it was just a report of this user's problematic behavior, a correction to a machine-translated article, etc., and no offensive intent.  The reason why many articles by this user remained in the editing history is because there were many mistakes in the content of the articles, which were often noticed after editing.  Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs as suggested above.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge