Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerinda

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 delete. Wizardman 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amerinda

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

Article was created as a dictionary definition of a neologism, and appeared to be promotional. Part of the definition was replaced by another definition by another user, and the proposed deletion was contested by the user who created the article, but it still fails WP:DICTIONARY and is unlikely to become an encyclopedic article so should be deleted. snigbrook (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd article. I agree that there isn't much chance it can be expanded...Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is an article for the genus Eurygaster but none for this species, and I don't think it worth retaining the first part of this against the day when someone might write articles about the individual species; also, this article was placed with promotional intent for a non-notable organization referred to in the second part - see Amerinda Church, at AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism. Registered trademark: Whoopee. Edison (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources do not establish notability. "Amerinda estudios" seems to be an obscure Portuguese academic journal, but even that hasn't got enough sources about it to write an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Eurygaster amerinda, expand from sources like this (p. 16) and this, and presumably the existing ref "entomology.ualberta.ca" is an RS. Get rid of the TM thing. Chzz ► 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient secondary sources with which to expand the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[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.