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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acheilognathus koreensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Acheilognathus koreensis is a real species, it is not a synonym of Tanakia. See fishbase according to Loupeter (talk · contribs) (Kylu (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• While technically this should be a RfD (as the original page was a redirect), since it's asserted to be an invalid redirect, the AFD may give us an opportunity to place the correct page there or, if none are interested, remand it to RfD if desired. Kylu (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - article contains no information whatsoever and therefore no assertion of how or why it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. fr33kman -s- 05:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have written a stub about this fish, rather than leave the article blank. As a documented species, I believe this is inherently notable. JulesH (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, documented species, viable stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable, no less notable than any of the thousands of other semi-obscure species stubs we've accumulated. (Not sure if there is an official guideline saying that all species are automatically notable, though that does seem to be the de facto consensus.) Hqb (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speed keep Teh Google has many verifiable, third-party, reliable sources available to write an article on the topic. [1] -Atmoz (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps this ought to be transwiki'd (or copied, if this results in keep) to wikispecies. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (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.