Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darlia


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Darlia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is absolutely no information or images on the 'Darlia' moth to be found. The page has one sentence which is simply a claim that 'Darlia' is a type of moth, and yet nothing exists to back it up.

It has already been suggested by a Wiki page moderator that it may have been created by mistake due to the way that it was created.

There is however a species of 'DAHLIA' moth - 'Dahlia capnobela' and 'Dahlia hesperioides' which there is evidence of online. Nayday (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 9.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The genus listed in the infobox is Dahlia, for which there is already an article. The article is probably the result of a typo when the article was created. - MrX
 * Keep. This does appear to be a real genus, separate from 'Dahlia', which belongs to a different family. I've corrected the article's infobox and added some sources. There also exist additional book and journal mentions, such as here, but they only offer snippet views, so not that helpful for expanding the WP entry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hobbes' sources suggest that this genus does exist. --Michig (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2012 (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.