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 keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A30 matriline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

lacks notability , zero reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable, and there are plenty of sources available from Google Scholar alone due to the fact that this group has been heavily studied. The article should be expanded and more references should added, but the article should not be deleted. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not sure why the two references already in the article wouldn't be considered reliable, they both look reasonable to me. JulesH (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tracking and identifying of these pods furthers the understanding of the species. There are a few books and numerous web resources available. The article needs some attention, is all.Vulture19 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources appear reliable to me. It's of specialist interest, true, but it does seem notable within its field. Anaxial (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources seem fine. One of the advantages of not being paper is that specialist subjects can be covered in detail. Whales don't have to explode to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2009 (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.