Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollex laosi


 * 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. I think the consensus is that it's real, which was the only objection  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Pollex laosi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found this article through the random article button, and something seems fishy here--it only has one source, but Pollex laosi is not mentioned in the abstract, and going on the Zootaxa website and searching for it is futile--there are no results. Additionally, googling the article's title in quotes turns up a whopping 204 results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Something seems fishy here--this seems to be a hoax. Jinkinson  talk to me  00:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I asure you it is not a hoax. Please also see . It is a recently described species and the article is not open access, so that is the main reason there are so few hits on google. Ruigeroeland (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - (Tentative keep). I've come across more than a few little-known but authoritatively documented species of insects (not to mention birds, reptiles, etc.) that don't have a web presence outside Wikipedia and mirrors. In fact I'm sure you could find hundreds and likely thousands of articles for species that fit the same bill. I'm not inclined to think it's a hoax. The editor looks to make many productive taxonomic contributions. Fibiger is referenced many times here and seems to be understood to be a reliable source -- we just don't have access to it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I left (page creator) a message on his talk page. Hopefully he has the document in question and can clarify. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the event that Ruigeroeland is correct and this moth really does exist, I would like to apologize for starting this discussion--I did so because I had recently nominated an actual hoax for deletion, and so I became overly confident in my ability to detect them. Jinkinson   talk to me  02:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all and sorry for removing the Deletion-tag, I was under the impression that the nomination was the work of a vandal, but now see it was a genuine concern. Hope you are now confident it is a real species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Genuine taxon. Keep. Thanks for your vigilance Jinkinson.Notafly (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The cited paper proposing a revision of the Micronoctuidae is 6 years old, yet Pollex laosi appears in no scientific publications indexed by Google. However, it has been described in a legitimate taxonomic paper, by an author we frequently cite here on Wikipedia. -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2013 (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.