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 of the debate was speedy keep for reasons below. RanDom 404 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compsosaurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Possible hoax? RanDom 404 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep procedurally. definitely not a hoax article, just a poorly-described early doubtful genera. These are not inherently notable but there is no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been attempted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar turns up 2 pages of papers about this, with the most recent from 1998. Not well know enough to have warranted further study. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences)#Living things. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:54, 7 December 2020 (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.