Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciobarbus pallaryi

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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luciobarbus pallaryi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not comply with MOS:LIFE JTZegers (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with numerous scholarly articles and an IUCN listing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species names are inherently notable as long as they are cited in reliable publications, and there are a few. Also listed in IUCN [1] as per above. --Dps04 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No salient reason given for deletion, article complies with all requirements for a taxonomic topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no argument made for deletion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2020 (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.