Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long & short winged

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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long & short winged

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, possible original research. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the terrible prose of the article, there's a case for nonsense as well, but the material here should be in the article on the respective genus; it has no context outside of it. MSJapan (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see it as being attributed to reliable sources so WP:OR. Also I don't see it as being a notable article. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Information about wing length in the insects should surely be covered in relevant articles for each species rather than in an independent article such as this. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terribly written text where even the subject is diffucult to identify. No sources or citations, looks like OR. Nsk92 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not nonsense, although it's a bit too close to it for my tastes. I don't think it's OR, but no refs are given so that's possible. If there are known genetic classifications of insects (as a group or certain species) as into "short winged" and "long winged" (as indeed there are [1] ) then that should be in Insects or an insect genetics article, or possibly into articles about specific species, genera or families. Merenta (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — user has placed a {{db-self}} tag on his user talk page underneath the notification. ... discospinster _talk 21:21, 15 May 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.