Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsico-Sardinian wild pig


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Corsico-Sardinian wild pig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unreferenced one-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace with no effort made to add references or address concerns in any way. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It is easy to find sources for such topics. For example,
 * Wild Pigs in the United States
 * The Walking Larder
 * Vegetable and animal food sorts found in the gastric content of Sardinian Wild Boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis)
 * Damages caused to crops by wild boars (S. scrofa meridionalis) in Sardinia
 * Reproductive and demographic parameters in Sardinian wild boar, Sus scrofa meridionalis
 * and so on. Neither AfD nor Prod are for cleanup.  Our editing policy states clearly that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , by moving them back to mainspace within hours, without clear edit summaries as to why and without an attempt to improve them, is not 'collaborative editing' by any means. I didn't suggest they need cleanup, they need deletion or redirecting, or such serious work that it isn't clear at the moment that they can possibly meet our criteria - which is what draftspace is for. This is part of a series by an editor,, who has refused to communicate or add sources. Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid subspecies, material plainly exists and just needs to be added. Granted, u|Dennis the mennis hasn't covered themselves in glory with these unreferenced stubs, but now that they are here, we might as well spruce them up. Did the minimum for this (and the other two - in process). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It simply has to meet WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Is this a valid zoological name or not. The nomination statement fails to address this one key point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2017 (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.