Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo gardarensis


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Homo gardarensis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insignificant case of mistaken identity with no potential for expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There are more references available, both from the 1930s with the initial misidentification (e.g Keith, 1930, Nature volume 125, pages 935–942) and resolution (Keith, New Discoveries, 1931, 483; and Smith, 1931, Nature volume 127, pages 963–967), and from modern texts considering the case (Hawkins, 1992, ). I'm not certain whether these add up to enough to justify a separate article however. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand I see definite potential to expand beyond this simple summary.-- Auric   talk  22:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites a 25-page paper in an academic journal solely devoted to this specimen, which should have been a clue for the nominator that it is neither insignificant nor lacking potential for expansion. The additional sources found by Bondegezou establish solid notability. If I find the time I'll try to expand it—it's an interesting topic—but either way there's no grounds for deletion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and thanks to Auric for expansion, I have added further sources. While the case may be insignificant, the coverage in sources is not. Meets GNG. Sam Sailor 14:36, 3 July 2018 (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.