Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohenbergia itamarajuensis


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, see below. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hohenbergia itamarajuensis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article about a plant species is a one-line stub. Despite an extensive search, I can find no more information about this than is already in the article. The source cited,, mentions the subject once in a list of similar species. A google scholar search for the title in quotes produces 3 results, one is the source already mentioned, the other two do not look any more promising (although I have access to neither). One looks to be just a list of similar species, the other, is an analysis of  2,875 newly discovered angiosperm species in Brazil. A google book search is equally fruitless, it produces 2 hits, one to a book published by Books LLC, a company which republishes Wikipedia articles in book form, the other is inaccessible to me. This article looks like it does not meet the GNG. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.36 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Species are generally notable, given the literature associated with finding and naming them, although online sources are not always easy to find. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per above. Every single species on the planet has at least one reliable academic source due to way they are named. The two sentences and the taxobox also provides valuable information to those who can understand it. Do not confuse length with notability. Please do not nominate taxon articles again for GNG reasons alone. The only instances where organisms are usually AfD'd is if they are hoaxes or if they are infraspecific ranks like commercial cultivars or hybrids of doubtful notability. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Speedy doesn't seem to apply, but WP:SNOW does. General notability is met, so unless the nominator can come up with a better reason, I suggest the nom withdraw or this be a WP:SNOW closure. Rkitko (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Consensus has emerged that species are notable on a per se basis. If it helps ya sleep at night, rest assured that there are sources "out there" dealing with every known species on the planet as part of the naming process. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deluge Keep, only because this notable species is from Brazil and probably wouldn't survive the snow. Published species are inherently notable because they need to be published in a reliable academic source, like this one. First Light (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Publication as a species meets the notablity threshold. Melburnian (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are tens of thousands, if not more, one line organism stubs on wikipedia, many with fewer sources than this. Feel free to spend your time on en.wikipedia nominating every single one of them on similar grounds. Pseudofusulina (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, species are inherently notable and encyclopedic subject matter. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the arguments above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep All species are notable, no matter how obscure or unremarkable, as long as they have been found in at least one source. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn per WP:SNOW, consensus has been established, although I disagree with this consensus, and no guideline has been pointed to which indicates that species are automatically notable, there is no chance that this article will be deleted. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  11:18, 5 February 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.