Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nupela

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nupela

[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 was previously deleted and now created again with only one reference. Looking for suggestions. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the page was previously deleted in 2009 as part of a mass deletion of articles created by Anybot. The relevant AfD can be found here. Also noting that this version and the previously deleted one are very different. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very well discussed in Gscholar, this is typical [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diatom: Clearly fails GNG. Don't think we need an indiscriminate collection of every single tiny organism. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Species and taxa are inherently notable per WP:SPECIES. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accepted taxa are notable if validly published. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easier to just improve a taxon article that already exists than to delete it and make someone else re-create it. At least this one has a validly published reference, instead of a database url. Also, redirecting it to a higher taxon when they are not synonyms or monotypic makes our editing even more difficult, so I kindly ask you not to do it, please. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, with 100's of sources in Google Scholar. Esculenta (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2023 (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.