Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ampelocalamus scandens


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  08:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ampelocalamus scandens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Singular unnotable species, delete or redirect to Bamboo —   IVORK  Discuss 04:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Resolved: header issue —   IVORK  Discuss 06:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, if it's got a valid classification and has not molested the mayor's daughter, it's notable. These sub-stubs just need a little sprucing up (taxobox, at minimum) to join the vast ranks of other species stubs we are perfectly happy to have. I'll see to it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did the minimum for Ampelocalamus scandens, will do the others in an hour or so. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Plantdrew. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator just claims without explanation that these well-documented species are not notable. That is not a sufficient basis for deleting articles about species which are discussed in peer-reviewed articles such as "MA, Yu-dong, et al. "The Anatomical Characters of the Endemic and Critically Endangered Bamboo Species——Ampelocalamus scandens and Drepanostachyum luodianense in Guizhou Province." Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology 1 (2012): 004." You can find many such articles by clicking the "Scholar" button at the top of this AFD. Only if an article is about a species which lacks scholarly documentation, such as one claimed to exist by an unqualified hobbyist,or some crypto-bio  animal seen only in a grainy video is the article deleted, in general.  On the one extreme WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES discussing common outcomes of AFD says  "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD."   That means simply that there is a place for the information about the species in Wikipedia, not that a stand=alone article  is the appropriate way to cover it. And I do not agree with the circular logic of citing "common outcomes" as a formal notability guideline, which it is not. But it is a reality check as to the futility of trying to delete articles of a sort which never get deleted. At a more important level,  WP:N does not stipulate that every notable subject MUST have a standalone article. See WP:NOPAGE. There are subject-specific guidelines for music, books, sports, people and 17 other topics, but I see none for species. Merger into a more general article, where the topic receives an appropriate amount of coverage, is always a possibility but this is "Articles for DELETION," not "Articles for MERGER." If you want to merge articles about subspecies into a main article, then instead of AFD you should use the process described in detail at Merging. Edison (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. These taxa exist, and the stubs have references. The articles are certainly in need of improvment though (I've add taxoboxes and categories to the two Acidosasa species listed in the nomination). Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – The species seems to be notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and the nominator has not explained why they don't think it is. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 20:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The species already has sources that attribute it in the article, and that's all this needs in terms of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There's no way this article be deleted or redirected with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.