Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passalus inops

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 speedy keep. consensus is that it meets SPECIES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passalus inops

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, has no significant sources listed. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species are automatically notable. And even for GNG, the sources don't need to be listed, they merely need to exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If they exist, where are they? I find it absurd that an unsourced article is allowed to stay because of one guideline, which still should adhear to WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources can be found by searching for the title (as an exact phrase) in Google scholar and Google books. Also see WP:BEFORE, which you appear not to have followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secondary question, if you are so easily able to find these sources, why weren't they added to the article a long time ago? Why is it a mere sentence with no sources? Rusted AutoParts 01:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are tens of thousands of such articles, if not hundreds of thousands. Tertiary question, Are you going to consume the community by nominating each and every one for deletion? Quaternary question, Why not add a source instead of nominating it for deletion; it would have taken less time for you to find and add a source than to nominate for deletion (unless you're using a script for the latter and not the former)? 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Species are inherently notable for their own articles even with a stub as short as this. For species, one shouldn't have any problem finding a source to confirm before considering nomination for deletion if it truly isn't a species. I added a the best ref I could find, but it looks like it's a species that gets little mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES clearly controls here. The article should be improved with better sources, not deleted.-- danntm ^T _C 01:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.