Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grouvellina hova

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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grouvellina hova

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

Fails WP:GNG. I think this should be transwikied into wikispecies instead. TheQ Tester (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEFACTO. All living things are notable, per that. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All species are notable. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. No argument has been advanced that the beetle in question is not a separate and documented species. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the above. This is the second disruptive nomination by this editor, who specifies on his User page "This account is used to carry out harmless experiments for example: testing out some Welcome notices and talkback templates." We're headed for AN/I if this keeps up, my friend... Carrite (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly within the scope of what a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. It is in this book. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Tester (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (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.