Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helobiae


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Helobiae

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Invalid taxa do not typically receive their own articles. WP:NBIOL doesn't really go into specifics about this, but it seems reasonable based on the general WP:N guidelines to say that this doesn't need to be a separate article, as the topic can simply be briefly mentioned on the articles of former members of this outdated grouping. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions.  An anonymous username, not my real name  00:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: To be clear, are you making the claim that Category:Historically recognized angiosperm taxa should be an empty category? I don't have an issue with that, I just want to ask where you draw the line for invalid taxa. Thanks. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my claim, — I would've handled this differently had I taken a look at that category before nominating. I don't see how having such stubs is justified in any way, as the only relevant information is the origin of the name, since anything about former subtaxa belongs in their own separate articles. They are not notable, for the same reason we don't have an article on Thalarctos, an invalid genus which formerly included the polar bear, whose article it redirects to. Furthermore, as instructed by WP:NBIOL, many valid subspecies do not receive their own articles, so clearly having a scientific name alone does not create notability. After reading this, what are your thoughts?  An anonymous username, not my real name  23:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're right in the broad strokes but I am a bit more cautious. There's some weak evidence that this name is still in use, see this paper below from 2015 which is a good journal. We should keep articles if there's evidence that the old name has been historically important (the most extreme example here is Dicotyledon) or if there's current controversy about it.
 * I'm not sure that subspecies is the appropriate analogy to make for historically recognised taxa, but I defer to people who have been around longer than I have.
 * https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12347 NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.