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, but needs improvement by adding content from the article on the German Wikipedia. Bduke (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone louse[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced, badly written, contains possible original research, subject probably not notable. — Jack (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a New Scientist article about its inclusion in Pschyrembel The word: Copyright Trap, but I can't access full article. -Hunting dog (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a notable example of German humour, given its inclusion in an otherwise serious medical text. It also has a lengthy article in the German Wikipedia, so presumably the editors there agree that it's notable (and German wikipedia tends to have stricter inclusion criteria than English wikipedia). Klausness (talk) 00:25, 19 June 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.