Deletion of Ampelocalamus scandens

Comment: The nominator just claims without explanation that these  well-documented species are not notable. That is not a sufficient basis for deleting articles about species which are discussed in peer-reviewed articles such as "MA, Yu-dong, et al. "The Anatomical Characters of the Endemic and Critically Endangered Bamboo Species——Ampelocalamus scandens and Drepanostachyum luodianense in Guizhou Province." Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology 1 (2012): 004." You can find many such articles by clicking the "Scholar" button at the top of this AFD. Only if an article is about a species which lacks scholarly documentation, such as one claimed to exist by an unqualified hobbyist,or some crypto-bio  animal seen only in a grainy video is the article deleted, in general.  On the one extreme  discussing common outcomes of AFD says  "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD."   That means simply that there is a place for the information about the species in Wikipedia, not that a stand=alone article  is the appropriate way to cover it. And I do not agree with the circular logic of citing "common outcomes" as a formal notability guideline, which it is not. But it is a reality check as to the futility of trying to delete articles of a sort which never get deleted. At a more important level,   does not stipulate that every notable subject MUST have a standalone article. See OPAGE. There are subject-specific guidelines for music, books, sports, people and 17 other topics, but I see none for species. Merger into a more general article, where the topic receives an appropriate amount of coverage, is always a possibility but this is "Articles for DELETION," not "Articles for MERGER." If you want to merge articles about subspecies into a main article, then instead of AFD you should use the process described in detail at Wikipedia:Merging
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES||WP:N||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: per . These taxa exist, and the stubs have references. The articles are certainly in need of improvment though (I've add taxoboxes and categories to the two ''Acidosasa'' species listed in the nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)

Comment: ndash; The species seems to be notable per , and the nominator has not explained why they don't think it is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)

Comment: The species already has sources that attribute it in the article, and that's all this needs in terms of . There's no way this article be deleted or redirected with that in mind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)