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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger rockfish[edit]

Tiger rockfish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article previously AfD'd that seems to only tell a story and may be copyvio'ed from another website, whose citations don't help the fact it is only a thesis or argument, or a story ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable and verifiable subject ([1]). Citations, style, tone and copyvio concerns can be dealt with by editing. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What story would that be? By my reading it seems to be attempting to tell the reader about a species of fish, Sebastes nigrocinctus, whose article on the French Wikipedia can be found at fr:Sebastes nigrocinctus, whose Commons picture category is at commons:Category:Sebastes nigrocinctus, and which has been redlinked at Sebastes since February 2006. You should be thanking Mmcbride094 (talk · contribs) for adding an article on a subject that we've wanted for at least three years, not nominating xyr article for deletion repeatedly just because xe is a novice editor who isn't yet familiar with wiki markup. You're an editor famliar with the markup. Your rôle in these circumstances is to help the novice editor with the markup. Xe even cited sources that fully support the content, for goodness' sake! Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no clear reason given for deletion. Article is both notable and verifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well-sourced and about a real species. Nomination appears completely unrelated to the article. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a well sourced stub about a real animal, and now has had some good copyedits. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Tim Vickers. MuffledThud (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - aggressive editing since nomination has made this article a keeper. Side issue: the article now has a striking picture of a tiger rockfish. Excellent work by all who added to the article over the past four days. B.Wind (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2009 (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.