Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prithvilus willardi


 * 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Prithvilus willardi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This genus simply does not exist; no presence in any database that I have checked, no descriptions, not in synonymy with anything. As best I can tell, the name seems to have escaped from our List of snakes of Arizona, where it was added for whatever reason, and spread over the net from there. I have removed it from that list. Delete as hoax. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Elmidae Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The Arizona Game & Fish pamphlet used as a reference actually lists Crotalus willardi as the state snake, with nothing about this alleged species. RobDuch (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry :( --Wesborden (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Searched for the species name in all citations given; didn't find it in any. Trialpears (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I went searching a bit too and pretty much only found what Elmidae mentions. Maybe there's some obscure source out there that wanted a genus change, but we'd need to actually see it first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (possible speedy delete under G3) I also did a quick search and I can only find a book that says that it's there. The book was written a couple of days ago, so it could be deleted due to WP:TOOSOON. However, it could also be a blatant hoax since I haven't found any other sources that mentions the genus. If it's a hoax, then the article should be tagged with G3.  I Need Support  :3 14:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's the author of the article's fault though.  I Need Support  :3 14:47, 23 May 2019 (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.