- 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Misa (moth) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that describe the topic well. Blackbombchu ( talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu ( talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject is not notable. Meatsgains ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- But why wouldn't WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES apply to this genus? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Major biological classifications (family, genus, species) are notable, full stop. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, as well as an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I had thought, too. Keep per Bushranger. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Bushranger. Onel5969 TT me 16:09, 24 December 2015 (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.