Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norcondam Shrew


 * 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 Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, with the recommendation that the article be renamed "Narcondam shrew." A WP:BOLD non-admin closure, to be certain, but it is unlikely there would be consensus for its deletion. (non-admin closure) Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Norcondam Shrew

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It appears that Wikipedia is being used to publish original research - WP:OR. One reference is to a nonreviewed research paper. The other is to a very recently published paper, apparently written by an author of the article. At best, the article is WP:TOOSOON. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article should be moved to Narcondam Shrew (holding off as long as AfD is up). These Shrews have been there for ages, just because they were recently discovered does not mean they are not significant or notable. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and this is a mammal to boot. Published in popular news in The Hindu and with a credible scientific publication Kamalakannan, M., Sivaperuman, C., Kundu, S. et al. Discovery of a new mammal species (Soricidae: Eulipotyphla) from Narcondam volcanic island, India. Sci Rep 11, 9416 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88859-4.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is very clear on this to the point that it's practically a snow keep.
 * Keep, and rename to Narcondam shrew, per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and above, but rename per Sailing. The "very recently published paper" was in a Nature publication and sufficiently demonstrated that this is a distinct species. The analysis was conducted over a year ago at this point, it just took until now for the paper to pass muster.  Kncny11  (shoot) 17:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The original link, and Scholar search results, may have been misleading because they both go to the preprint. Following the DOI, however, gets you to the reviewed and accepted version. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:55, 4 May 2021 (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.