- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure). From Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Anoncopeucus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anoncopeucus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There has been almost nothing in the article since 2011. It only has one reference, and isn't notable. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 06:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - doesn’t seem like WP:BEFORE was done, there are links in in the taxonbar. Also see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Pretty much all valid/accepted genera are notable and worthy of inclusion as encyclopedia articles (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). I also expanded the article a bit. — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 01:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Name genera are notable. Searching in google book brings up sources, and regardless per WP:5P1 Wikipedia is also a gazetteer, and this article falls within that.-- Eostrix ( talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above mentioned matters/reasons. Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, apart from species being inherently notable, meets WP:GNG, improvements to the article reflect this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes notability. However some more detailed information on the subject would be neccessary. - The9Man | ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2020 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure). From Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Anoncopeucus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anoncopeucus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There has been almost nothing in the article since 2011. It only has one reference, and isn't notable. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 06:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - doesn’t seem like WP:BEFORE was done, there are links in in the taxonbar. Also see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Pretty much all valid/accepted genera are notable and worthy of inclusion as encyclopedia articles (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). I also expanded the article a bit. — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 01:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Name genera are notable. Searching in google book brings up sources, and regardless per WP:5P1 Wikipedia is also a gazetteer, and this article falls within that.-- Eostrix ( talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above mentioned matters/reasons. Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, apart from species being inherently notable, meets WP:GNG, improvements to the article reflect this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes notability. However some more detailed information on the subject would be neccessary. - The9Man | ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2020 (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.