Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glyptothorax kurdistanicus


 * 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The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Müdigkeit (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyptothorax kurdistanicus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Sources contain little information, and seem to be broad catalogues or lists, as well as one source that seems to be a source directed on the order Siluriformes, so no significant coverage. Little is known about this species, it looks like a dictionary entry. If it would be redirected, Glyptothorax would be the target, so it isn't needed, as its name is an extension of that name. That article already contains information about this species. Müdigkeit (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Usual outcomes - which are the scope of that Wikipedia essay - should be never the sole reason to keep an article.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Catalogue of Life and FishBase entries for this species make it a convincing Keep. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. These are the kind of broad databases that are not convincing. They keep every type of species that exists.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Verified and documented animal species. North America1000 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is a usual outcome for a reason; virtually every scientifically described species has significant coverage in at least a handful of sources. In this case, more than I expected for what the nominator purports to be a nearly-unknown species:
 * The original species description:
 * An examination of whether its range extends into the lower Tigris:
 * Discussions of parasitism and parasite load in the species:
 * And its inclusion in a systematic review of related species in the region:
 * Plus quite a few others that offer less substantial coverage but that would still provide valuable supporting information for a better-developed article, which, frankly, at this point I'm tempted to write just because I just did the legwork that should have already been done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that this has significant coverage in any of these sources? At least one of them does not have significant coverage(Discussions of parasitism and parasite load in the species), and Berg is a primary source in addition to that. Did you look into these sources, or did you just look around if it is mentioned anywhere?--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm quite certain what the sources contain. If you'd like some very specific, significant coverage, please see pages 243-244 of Coad. Although others include substantial information as well. The Jawad, Hussein, and Fahad article is entirely about this species. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Every species is notable. Agree with User:Squeamish Ossifrage above about WP:BEFORE. Rkitko (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (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.