Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaerobutyricum hallii

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Anaerobutyricum hallii}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Anaerobutyricum hallii}})

Poorly sourced, recently created stub article that fails WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, a species that verifiably exists – Thjarkur (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Additionally, the species does meet WP:GNG [https://www.nature.com/articles/npjbiofilms20169][https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00713/full], but it is necessary to search for its former name to find the relevant sources – Thjarkur (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Thjarkur. Mccapra (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Species are always notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. Pladica (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOW. Cupper52 has made a "specious" nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep Biological species stubs clearly do not qualify for deletion. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. Verifiable species are always kept. It's probably inside of you right now, {{U|Clarityfiend}}. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, even if it's a bit of a pile-on at this point. Yes, this is notable. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.