Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decantha borkhausenii

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. The nomination fails to advance a valid argument for deletion. For examples of valid deletion reasons, see WP:DEL-REASON. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decantha borkhausenii

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

Un-needed article. TheEpTic (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep - Type species of the genus Decantha, synonymous with Decantha boreasella [1] (Reticulated Decantha Moth; see List of moths of North America (MONA 855-2311)), might also have been known as Oecophora borkhausenii [2] Chris857 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that synonym claim? I can find no RS to back that up. You're right on Oecophora borkhausenii, since the species was known before the genus Decantha was defined (and initially, D. borkhausenii was the only species in the genus). -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On checking, it seems that the American specimens were split off into D. boreasella as a separate species, which is why D. borkhausenii does not appear on MONA. -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Define "un-needed". That's not a valid delete argument AFAIK.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale provided by nom (#2a: frivolous or vexatious nomination). Long-established practice is that all recognised species are notable. -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are certainly plenty of references. -- 101.119.15.29 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bearas (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (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.