Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpalus subtruncatus


 * 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 Nomination withdrawn, and various considerations. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Harpalus subtruncatus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominated by Special:Contributions/2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA with rationale: It was malformed as they were unable to complete the submission. So, in a spirit of WP:IAR I am lodging the submissin on their behalf, in order to remove the faux-AfD templates from the article page within the week and not get a bot message/reversal. I note that the result of the discussion wil likely be speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, if not nominator withdrawal. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure what relevance Wikipedia is not a dictionary has for the proposed AfD of this article? Any further explanation? Article is a stub yes, but it is for a named species of ground beetle and is appropriately described in biological terms. There is definitely an issue with this name referring to a synonym of another species in the genus Harpalus suggested here and here and the taxonomic nomenclature of ground beetles is somewhat changeable - but that is a wider issue for resolution within the articles and is not actually referred to in the initial AfD reasoning. So purely on being against the proposed reason, I am voting Keep. The in line reference is not ideal yes, but see WP:NEXIST. Taxonomic issues aside, as a species level article it certainly meets WikiProject Insects . There are over 20,000 Stub class beetle articles so I'm not sure why this particular article has been flagged for deletion.Zakhx150 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per . &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:39, 25 May 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.