Deletion of Oleogustus

Comment: Passes  and also keep per . The topic has received international significant coverage in reliable sources. See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Oleogustus%22&tbm=nws this link for source examples
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: was delete) per RockMagnetist, albeit severely trimmed. as there is not enough evidence this will become a widely used term.  and  obviously apply here, and merging/redirecting is moot at this point. The primary source is so recent it hasn't even been cited once for crying out loud! Wikipedia is |not a news outlet
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOT)

Comment: In terms of / concerns, the original academic journal paper builds on an existing literature, so one can build better article content using a variety of sources... but that literature is already covered at Taste#Fattiness. I see no point in having Oleogustus as it is separate from the material at Taste#Fattiness. Either merge Oleogustus into Taste (a simple cut'n'paste job), or take the Taste#Fattiness material out of Taste and merge it into Oleogustus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NEO)

Comment: to Taste#Fattiness, which already has related content. Failing  is irrelevant as this is a biology article, not a medical article. The citations are fine for a biology article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)