Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhopalodontidae


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Rhopalodontidae

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources do not exist to establish notability of this, and there isn't enough information available to write an article. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most articles on extinct little known genera/taxa I have come across exist like this (although often with one resource some of which only mention it in passing), also I don't think notability is an issue with extinct genera/taxa (if it is then half of all known palaeontology articles would be deleted as they are of the same standard). I don't see any reason to single this article out when there are plenty like this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES; biological taxa are considered inherently notable. There are articles for two genera in this family; the family article is needed to complete the taxonomic hierarchy for the genera. Plantdrew (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * keep As a general rule, unless they are unverifiable, animal stubs will always survive AFD. 💸Money💸emoji💸 💴 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that by citing a wikipedia policy? Natureium (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES 💸Money💸emoji💸 💴 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this appears to be a real thing, these afd efforts would have been better spent in providing sourcing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, in-use taxon. However, trout to for creating stubs without any references; and particularly for not including one where the source cannot readily be found by others (I have been unable to find a citation for the family - most sources just put the included species under Dinocephalia). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - quite a few hits on Google Scholar. Add any of them as source and expand the article, deletion should never be the outcome for such cases. Only question is whether this is considered valid or a synonym of something else today. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 22 May 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.