Deletion of Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum

Comment: because this AfD would set a really bad precedent leading to mass deletions of plant articles. This may be a |POINT-making nomination, sadly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I note there is one merge vote but not actually any delete votes. |Snow is cold and hell is hot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granulifusus musasiensis|Granulifusus musasiensis AfD. As an obvious keep, it's clear the nominator made what |must kindly be described as a mistake. This is not reason for |comment-war. Close, move on, continue to improve this on-line encyclopaedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL||WP:NPA)

Comment: Any verifiable species is inherently notable. This one has been |Verified with |Reliable Sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:RS)

Comment: per |improvements.  I understand why the nom was made, but it now is a |well-sourced, valid |stub
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS||WP:STUB)