Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurysthea lacordairei


 * 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Eurysthea lacordairei

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very short article which does not establish its notability. Param Mudgal talk? 11:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Article size is not a valid reason for deletion, and species are generally regarded as notable. Is there any reason to treat this differently, such as verifiable doubt that it is an independent species? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the IPs reasoning, not a reason for deletion. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a verified species. I added some references and did a bit of cleanup. The Crazed Beast (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I know we had a shakily established beetle species here recently which engendered a fair bit of discussion, but this is not one of those. Thus fine, like any number of species stubs.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It's been described many times (under many synonyms) in reliable literature, and this is the currently accepted name, per . FourViolas (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (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.