Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scylacorhinus


 * 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)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   01:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Scylacorhinus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub-level article since 2009; based on a Google search it appears this refers to a single fossil described in 1915. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have a similar case for deletion:


 * The first and last ones of this list have an image at Commons and thus should have an article too. I agree the amazing production in stubs by colleague Abyssal need expansions and for the main RfD it may be too old (1915) and too little described for an own article, but then expanding these stubs would be the way forward, just deleting them would be backward. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All genera are notable and get there own articles regardless how many specimens have been referred to the genus. Abyssal (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first and last ones of this list have an image at Commons and thus should have an article too. I agree the amazing production in stubs by colleague Abyssal need expansions and for the main RfD it may be too old (1915) and too little described for an own article, but then expanding these stubs would be the way forward, just deleting them would be backward. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All genera are notable and get there own articles regardless how many specimens have been referred to the genus. Abyssal (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first and last ones of this list have an image at Commons and thus should have an article too. I agree the amazing production in stubs by colleague Abyssal need expansions and for the main RfD it may be too old (1915) and too little described for an own article, but then expanding these stubs would be the way forward, just deleting them would be backward. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All genera are notable and get there own articles regardless how many specimens have been referred to the genus. Abyssal (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 - no valid rationale provided for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Every genus deserves its article. --Snek01 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree with "speedy keep; every genus is notable". This genus appears to have only been described in one book, over 100 years ago, as a result of a single extinct specimen.  The bulk delete may be unreasonable though, some of the other cases may be different. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2017 (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.