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 merge to Biogenic substance. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenic[edit]

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

This article contains neither references nor categories. It appears to be more of a definition than a true Wikipedia article. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WINAD Sheepythemouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out that I erred in my redirect to Abiogenesis. If that's so, this Afd should certainly run its course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is no more (nor less!) than a dictionary definition of an adjective. It doubtless belongs in Wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Biogenic substance. Abiogenic/biogenic are two aspects of the same concept and discussing them together in one article is perfectly reasonable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edgar. Having separate articles on these two concepts is like having separate articles for nonflammable and flammability, while deleting this one is like deleting the nonflammable redirect. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (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.