Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evides pubiventris


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Evides pubiventris

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A similar article exists. Kindly redirect to that NBV2010 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment, what is the similar article? Esolo5002 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ref 1 states that a basionym is Chrysodema pubiventris, but there is no article with that name, at least. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms,  and South Africa.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid species name, as shown at Ref 1. The existence of an article on a genus is not a reason to delete an article on a species. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep See Reference 1 on the article. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a directly observed species on its own, so meets WP:NBIOL. Contributor892z (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (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.