Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clivina jodasi

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clivina jodasi

Clivina jodasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't contain any description about the beetle and does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Discussions are underway to put this criterion on a firmer footing, but as for now, all properly configured stubs on validly described species are kept. (Just out of curiosity, what do you consider an "independent" source for a species...?) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, taxonomy articles and their notability sure are an interesting topic. But when you think about it, it can be pretty clear:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://eurekamag.com/research/023/531/023531466.php	I have no idea either, it's not like a species is owned by anyone	original description of species	I won't pay 30 dollars for that one, but these tend to be multiple pages	✔ Yes
https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5ZB4D		assumably reliable dataset	the whole page is about the species	✔ Yes
https://www.gbif.org/species/8426863		per above	per above	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

But you're correct on the fact that adding detailed descriptions about beetles can be hard, if the access to the original publication isn't bought. But it does exist. NotAGenious (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article subject does not "require" additional text to become (more) notable. A description paragraph will be added whenever a future editor decides that they wish to do so. Current sources as provided are independent and subject is covered in multiple venues. Loopy30 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:NSPECIES. Jfire (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The first half of the nomination amounts to saying that the article is too short and so it shouldn't exist at all, and the second half is belied by the table above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.