Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctoperlaria: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:23, 10 December 2012

Arctoperlaria

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

Fails notability. No policy states that each and every obscure taxon on Earth should have its own article on Wikipedia. Cavisson (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by convention, cited taxa (and this one is) are deemed notable, just like places. Wikipedia has a function as index of taxa and as gazetteer, and we normally don't try to argue with it. As it happens, there are 5 references in the article, but in general even if there's only the one that originally defined the taxon, that's enough. The stoneflies are an important group, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The five references prove that the suborder exists, but not that it's notable. Existence is not tantamount to encyclopaedic notability.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't delete things for being "obscure", a notion that is nowhere in deletion policy. That's what readers often come to an encyclopaedia for, to look up obscure stuff that they don't know about. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we do delete things for being non notable, which is what this AfD is all about.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap PianoDan (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each and every taxon in earth should have an article in WP. By the very definition of what is an accepted taxon, they all have reliable sources; ever since 1753, you can't have a taxon without a valid publication. There's no need for a convention here--the GNG by itself does very nicely. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are a red herring here, because the issue is notability, not verifiability. There's no reason why this suborder should have its own, standalone article as opposed to having a dedicated section in the article Plecoptera.--Cavisson (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 * '''Keep''' - by convention, cited taxa (and this one is) are deemed notable, just like places. Wikipedia has a function as index of taxa and as gazetteer, and we normally don't try to argue with it. As it happens, there are 5 references in the article, but in general even if there's only the one that originally defined the taxon, that's enough. The stoneflies are an important group, too. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
-*:The five references prove that the suborder exists, but not that it's notable. Existence is tantamount to encyclopaedic notability.--[[User:Cavisson|Cavisson]] ([[User talk:Cavisson|talk]]) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
+*:The five references prove that the suborder exists, but not that it's notable. Existence is not tantamount to encyclopaedic notability.--[[User:Cavisson|Cavisson]] ([[User talk:Cavisson|talk]]) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 *We certainly don't delete things for being "obscure", a notion that is nowhere in [[Project:deletion policy|deletion policy]].  That's what readers often come to an encyclopaedia ''for'', to look up obscure stuff that they don't know about.  [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 *:But we ''do'' delete things for being non notable, which is what this AfD is all about.--[[User:Cavisson|Cavisson]] ([[User talk:Cavisson|talk]]) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)