Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugotheca typica
: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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
=[[:Rugotheca typica]]=
:{{la|1=Rugotheca typica}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Rugotheca typica}})
I find no listing of this species anywhere. Singular source is a dead website. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:Withdrawing - UtherSRG (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, China, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:[https://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?taxon_no=183345&is_real_user=1 Typo maybe?] YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Oh! That's a possibility. There seem to be reasonable refs for it, too. Yeesh.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Rugatotheca typica. I found a new URL for the reference. It was first described in 1980, but I can't find that reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Shoud be moved to Rugatotheca per as a paleo article (and also monotypic I think). I've done this actually, which is probably jumping the gun, but it's not controversial per WP:NBIOL (species are inherently notable). I'm neutral on what should be done with the now extant redirect at this location. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.