User talk:Tuckerresearch

Proposed deletion of Venezuelan poodle moth


The article Venezuelan poodle moth has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The subject of this article is a single photograph of a possibly undescribed species, and is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Venezuelan poodle moth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Venezuelan poodle moth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Venezuelan poodle moth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa
Hi, you added to this article "David F. Lappin maintains that the best solution is 1483 BC". He's basically a dentist.. Note that he also published in Troubador, but that is a self-publishing website. I think you probably found this in an edit originally by David Rohl who wrote 22.5% of New Chronology (Rohl). Doug Weller talk 13:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think a little "sourced" "fringe" hurts the article. But, I don't disagree removing it either.  TuckerResearch (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Properly sourced fringe maybe, but a dentist? Anyway, thanks for your friendly response.  Doug Weller  talk 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)