Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aedes canadensis


 * 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. (non-admin closure) —  Za  wl  17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Aedes canadensis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No citations and is orphaned. Also a very obscure animal which is hard to prove exists. BSOleader (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Below are some sources from Google Scholar. More sources are available. North America1000 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Environmental Entomology
 * Annals of the Entomological Society of America
 * Annals of the Entomological Society of America
 * Journal of Medical Entomology
 * Keep Notable as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, but we need to resolve or explain the taxonomic dispute per WP:NPOV. Ochlerotatus seems to be a POV argument that Ochlerotatus is "accepted", but reading between the lines it's still hotly disputed whether it's a proper genus or a subgenus of Aedes; most recent sources for the species seem to refer to it as Aedes (Ochlerotatus) canadensis    FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Ochlerotatus canadensis, if I correctly understand the taxonomic issue. In any case, valid species under one of these two synonyms. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above, I have also expanded the article a wee bit and will do some more work. Need to check if Ochlerotatus is a generally accepted species as most sources I have checked have the accepted generic name as Aedes.Quetzal1964 (talk)  20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Expanded further, reinforcing my Keep vote but I am also in favour of a move to Ochlerotatus canadensis.Quetzal1964 (talk)  06:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - All species are notable. Also, the current title should be kept, as ITIS (a source for WP:INSECTS) has Aedes as the genus name. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  00:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree; here's the link for reference. FourViolas (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2017 (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.