- 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The result was Withdrawn by nom/Snowball keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Salamandroidea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This smells like original research or just plain nonsense. Marlith T/C 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google search turns up lots of hits, like this one, that indicate that it's a real biological classification. Pinball22 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect with and to Salamander. Seems to be a legit term for a type of salamander, but there's not enough information here yet to justify a separate article, and there is enough room in the salamander article at present to cover this subject. When there is more than just a sentence (at least a couple of paragraphs) of sourced material, this can be split off at that time. Nick Graves 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sounds and smells hoaxy, but isn't, seeing the results of a google search. EDIT: I think suborders (which this is) are inheretantly notible enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Salamander. Search results show a legitimate class of salamander, but I agree there is not enough information in this article to justify a separate article, and should be merged with the salamander. No objections to recreation at a later date should the editor provide more information to justify its own article. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sorry. Let us SNOW this debate and close as keep. Marlith T/C 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nom could just withdraw and close. Merge/redirect is entirely editorial and doesn't require administrative attention. Someguy1221 09:29, 8 November 2007 (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.