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 of the debate was keep and rename. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't warrent it's own article. One sentence article, no categories or stubs. — Moe ε 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move, redirect to Anamirta cocculus, and improve. Definitely has potential. --Mgreenbe 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move (and keep) as per Mgreenbe. Plant species, even as stubs, are inherently encyclopedic, and if this is also the source of an important chemical substance, it certainly deserves an article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one-line substub. No prejudice to recreating a proper article. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good stub. Kappa 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.