Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani gecko

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 --JForget 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani gecko

Subject appears to be either a hoax or a misidentification of the organism Stanley011 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is a hoax. May fail WP:NOTE.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, you're right. Definitely a hoax, can't find it anwhere else. THE KC (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a hoax, a Dani Gecko is a rare Brazilian Gecko perhaps called 'Gekko scabridus'. Still can't find any notability for it. Hence delete. SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all classified species inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, all species are automatically notable, but I can't find anything to verify of the existence of this species, and a quick search doesn't turn anything up for Gekko dani or Dani gecko. This is a reference for 'Gekko scabridus' which is found in China rather than Brazil. See Gekko verreauxi for a stub article about another species of gekko. Editors wanting to create articles about the less common species of gekko could use the Gekko verreauxi stub article as a model for articles on other species. --Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thought it was a hoax at first; it might not be, but a google search turns up very little. No prejudice against recreation if the facts can be properly verified. PeterSymonds | talk 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a hoax. No problem with recreation if the existence of this species can be verified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Appears to be misinformation. Probably not a hoax, but it can be re-created if verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:48, 10 April 2008 (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.