Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacha inchi

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The result was nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Yngvarr 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha inchi

::I have withdrawn. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) :Sacha inchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) NO links - require huge cleanup! This may also be non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep How can a plant not be notable? If you're going to start applying notability to plants, you might as well delete 99% of them.. and why stop there? why don't we delete small towns? small animals? obscure scientific concepts??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done some very minor work to article, set out what I hope to do in articles talk page, will have to leave for now, but this AFD is a ridiculous WP:SNOW nomination, so i can leave it for now. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Your first two reasons are not reasons for deletion. As for the third, non-notable, searching the scientific name (Plukenetia Volubilis L) appears to pull up more information than the "common" name. [1] [2]. That last ref also cites refs of itself. Yngvarr 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as a species, it meets notability. I'm not sure how to better phrase that. matt91486 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as scientifically classified species = encyclopedic. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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.