Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spulerina lochmaea

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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spulerina lochmaea[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Too few references + not meeting notability guidelines. Avishai11 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Avishai11 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every species is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see WP:NANIMAL. Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep validly described species. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is the present reality. If that is changed, perhaps look again. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: this feels like a pile-on, but the nominator didn't know about this guideline. All species are notable. Sure, the sources could be better, but it's fine. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NSPECIES. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 12 February 2024 (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.