Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banksia stenoprion


 * 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 : Speedy keep - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Banksia stenoprion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Negligible content, not even a stub.--Exasperation115 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a valid stub with a reference; keep or merge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a noted species, I consider it notable. Given the FloraBase entry, and Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, Volume 7, page 122, item 62 is the first entry on this species, under the synonym Dryandra stenoprion. I don't imagine this becoming a long article, but it can surely be less stubby. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - will have >2 reliable sources, which I will add presently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As short as it is, the articles provide a taxonomic placement, information on habit, information on distribution, and a link to further information and a photo. Right now the word "negligible" is crying out in pain and resentment. Hesperian 00:31, 7 April 2014 (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.