Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passalus inops: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:18, 7 March 2016

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, has no significant sources listed. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species are automatically notable. And even for GNG, the sources don't need to be listed, they merely need to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If they exist, where are they? I find it absurd that an unsourced article is allowed to stay because of one guideline, which still should adhear to WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources can be found by searching for the title (as an exact phrase) in Google scholar and Google books. Also see WP:BEFORE, which you appear not to have followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secondary question, if you are so easily able to find these sources, why weren't they added to the article a long time ago? Why is it a mere sentence with no sources? Rusted AutoParts 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Species are inherently notable for their own articles even with a stub as short as this. For species, one shouldn't have any problem finding a source to confirm before considering nomination for deletion if it truly isn't a species. I added a the best ref I could find, but it looks like it's a species that gets little mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES clearly controls here. The article should be improved with better sources, not deleted.-- danntm ^T _C 01:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ****Secondary question, if you are so easily able to find these sources, why weren't they added to the article a long time ago? Why is it a mere sentence with no sources? [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<font face="Rockwell" size="3" style="color:#000000;color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></font>]] 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Speedy keep.''' Species are inherently notable for their own articles even with a stub as short as this. For species, one shouldn't have any problem finding a source to confirm before considering nomination for deletion if it truly isn't a species. I added a the best ref I could find, but it looks like it's a species that gets little mention. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy Keep.'''  [[WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES]] clearly controls here.  The article should be improved with better sources, not deleted.-- [[User:danntm|danntm]] <sup>[[user talk:danntm|T]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danntm|C]]</sub> 01:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)