Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naxidia punctata

: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:SNOW and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Naxidia punctata]]=

:{{la|Naxidia punctata}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naxidia_punctata Stats])

:({{Find sources|Naxidia punctata}})

article offers no improvement on content already existing on google. RichardMills65 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy? keep No reason to delete: sentences saying what something is are a good enough start for a stub, all species are notable. (And anyway, you don't see the wingspan and classification on Google.com itself.) —innotata 23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. --→gab 24dot grab← 06:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep because I made it. Just curious: since when is "no improvement on content already existing on google" an argument to delete an article? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Nomination rationale is invalid. -- 202.124.89.229 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.