Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusinus amadeus


 * 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, more or less WP:SNOW per WP:SPECIES. BD2412 T 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fusinus amadeus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Still has an infobox and a single sentence after eleven years. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Species are automatically notable. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:NSPECIES; species are currently considered inherently notable. This seems to be a valid species name. Hog Farm Talk 05:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is entirely the wrong approach to writing Wikipedia. If you see an article that is a stub that hasn't been expanded for eleven years, you should try expanding it yourself.  Ironically, this article can be significantly expanded, with Tokubei Kuroda's original name and information about how this species slipped through the cracks for starters, from the very first source cited.  Per Project:deletion policy this is keep.  Please learn how to find and fix a stub.  See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage which gives the old direct procedures from deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a species that has existed for millennia, and is notable per NSPECIES. The article should be improved, not deleted.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSPECIES. This is snowballing.Cinadon36 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted above, current consensus is that individual species are inherently notable. The article is not in such a sorry state as to motivate either turning it into a WP:DRAFT pending improvement or deleting it entirely per WP:TNT. TompaDompa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2021 (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.