Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigante de Río Negro

: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. No prejustice against recreation if and when more information is published scientifically. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[Gigante de Río Negro]]=

:{{la|Gigante de Río Negro}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Gigante de Río Negro}})

The Gigante de Rio Negro (or Rio Negro giant; each gets about 150 Ghits) is a rough dinosaurian equivalent to a BLP1E. It was mentioned in press releases in early 2000 as a new undescribed giant dinosaur and has more or less evaporated. It was never scientifically described and is unlikely to receive further attention; Rodolfo Coria, a prominent Argentine paleontologist, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077288/ns/technology_and_science/ reported] (in the section below the "show more text" tab) that the bones were too damaged to be scientifically useful and its great size was exaggerated. Without further research, all the subject has is a short period of time when it was thought to a contender for a giant dinosaur, which appears to have been too short of a period to turn it into a notable error. I propose that this article be deleted because of the subject's lack of notability. J. Spencer (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete If and when it gets classified and properly described, an article can be made. At the moment, it looks like ifs and buts rather than ifs and whens. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2011 (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.