Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctoperlaria


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Arctoperlaria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep per Chiswick Chap PianoDan (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * On the contrary, there's good reason. WP considers taxa individually notable, from kingdom right down to species level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof for this claim.--Cavisson (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, for example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - taxa are inherently notable. With access to a university library and the time it would be possible to write a FA on the topic. Nominator has not given any justification for his dismissal of the sources provided. --Claritas § 17:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, please read above. The sources provided only show that the taxon exists, not that it is notable (not the same thing).--Cavisson (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I disagree with the "taxa are inherently notable" paradigm, and have the scars to prove it, this taxon seems to me to be notable, for example, the coverage in and  is significant enough to pass WP:GNG for me. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - I withdraw this AfD, seeing that the consensus is to conflate verifiability and notability as if they were one and the same.--Cavisson (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (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.