Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eosimiids


 * 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. John254 03:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Eosimiids

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete unsourced one-liner that could be notable, might be useful, or could be just pure misinformation - the earliest known something, known by whom? - without sourcing, and context, WP would be better without than with this one... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy D absolutely no context. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per added sources, needs to be expanded beyond one line. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject is verifiable and the external links now suggest notability.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think there should be an article on the Eosimiids, but this isn't the one. The references in the article, and the few I've seen in a few minutes of searching, mention the group, but none that I've seen indicates that they are clearly basal to the anthropoids. That contradicts the assertion in the single line in the article. So: clearly notable, but the article is unusable as is. If an editor would like to work on it, the best reference I saw was "Into the Light: The Origin of Anthropoidea" by Callum Ross (Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29. (2000), pp. 147-194). It's available on JSTOR. [I have noted Wisdom89's addition of sources - good work, that.] -- BPMullins | Talk 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a good reason to delete it; if it's a subject deserving of an article but needs fixed, fix it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit, sources available. Disagreement aboutthe content is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I created this article when I was in anthropological biology class when my professor mentioned this. I meant to come back and fix it, just haven't gotten round to it. --The_stuart (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eosimias. Or possibly merge and keep the iid title. I am not part of wikiproject taxonomy, but our page on hominids indicates that the taxon should be the article title favored over the name for members of said. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eosimiidae per Bpmullins.


 * Keep - Move this one to the correct title Eosimiidae for the family. There's now enough to expand that article. (This article is a good start. Thanks for helping find the correct search term.) Don't redirect to Eosimias - there's a perfectly good article there about the genus and we now need one about the family. (Changed above !vote) -- BPMullins | Talk 20:29, 6 April 2008 (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.