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. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linaria dalmatica

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page only has 4 citations, contains a lot of opinion words that are unsourced, and this page has wrong capitalizations. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and species are notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. No sufficient argument presented for deletion. Chris857 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks to me to pass WP:NSPECIES. And here's another piece of significant coverage to throw in, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of an inherently notable category. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, valid species. Removed the unsourced material, added Kew ref. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deleting this article and two of the concerns of the nominator have now been addressed anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. —Kbabej (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2021 (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.