- 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 per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe ( talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Dorcadion pseudinfernale
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dorcadion pseudinfernale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No information on subject whatsoever. Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time. Aydoh8 ( talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 ( talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer. @ Aydoh8: please stop nominating species articles for deletion. The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like "no information on subject" and "a complete waste of time" have no basis in policy. Jfire ( talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort. @ Aydoh8: please consider this a warning. You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy. None of these is acceptable in the long term. If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable. JMWt ( talk) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (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 per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe ( talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Dorcadion pseudinfernale
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dorcadion pseudinfernale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No information on subject whatsoever. Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time. Aydoh8 ( talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 ( talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer. @ Aydoh8: please stop nominating species articles for deletion. The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like "no information on subject" and "a complete waste of time" have no basis in policy. Jfire ( talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort. @ Aydoh8: please consider this a warning. You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy. None of these is acceptable in the long term. If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable. JMWt ( talk) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (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.