Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scaly-footed Water Rat


 * 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. /Snow. No reason provided for deletion. TravellingCari 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scaly-footed Water Rat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The entire article is only one sentence, it gets about one edit every five months, if that, questionable references, etc. Do you really need anything else? QuidProQuo23 00:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- an article being short and largely ignored is not a deletion criterion, and I have no strong reasons for disputing the sources. Reyk  YO!  00:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. All species of animal should be inherantly notable. PC78 (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A species is rather notable by itself, if we can prove its existence with reliable sources: the Musser and Carleton source looks highly reliable. As noted by Reyk, there's no good reason even given to delete.  Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No reason to delete given, verifiable species are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some articles should be so lucky to get an edit evey five months. :) PC78 (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and what is wrong with this article? Being short breaks no policies. Tavix (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2008 (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.