I'm not opposing, but I've had images rejected because the articles are stubs. The issue is also at VI. I don't know what the answer is. Some of my animals are pretty obscure! Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can kind of see the stub thing, if the information is sparse enough that an upmerge to the genus might be appropriate (or there's doubts about WP:GNG, but otherwise, no, being valuable to at least one article should be sufficient. At least, that's what was always the rule two years ago. Anything else discourages article creation and variety of subjects covered. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs19:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]