Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloris truncata

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. No valid reason for deletion presented, the article is referenced (and can presumably be referenced and expanded further) and consensus is strongly in support of all species having articles. Plus, something something WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloris truncata

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

insufficient references; contested PROD — Jeff G. ツ 03:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All species of living things are considered to be notable, and the strong presumption is that additional reliable sources can be found. This (and similar) articles should be improved through normal editing, rather than being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Care of USDA.gov:

Hrusa, F., B. Ertter, A. Sanders, G. Leppig, and E. Dean. 2002. Catalog of non-native vascular plants occurring spontaneously in California beyond those addressed in The Jepson Manual. Part I. Madroño 49: 61-98. CA Literature
Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, 2 vols. University of Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Dru of Id (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article you are referring to has since been referenced with 2 references. While this may not seem like many, you need to take into account that the article is a stub, and that most other stubs around species of organisms only have 2 or three references. If you deleted all of these articles, then wikipedia's coverage of species would be very dismal indeed. This article needs to be improved by normal editing not deletion. If need be, a tag should be added to the article, citing that it requires additional referencing. This article should also be added to categories and a WikiProject so as to advertise its presence to other wikipedians who could expand and improve its quality and provide additional referencing. (talk), 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason given for deletion. A quick Google search reveals that this species exists, and if the article needs better references, they can be added later. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, there is no valid reason given for deletion. WP:INHERENT applies. AfD seems spurious after refutation of PROD. Taroaldo (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 374 hits on Google Scholar: recommend WP:BEFORE to the proposer. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, species of plants are notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a living thing. "Insufficient references" is not a valid criteria to EVER bring an article to AFD, regardless of the subject matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (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.