Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuelan poodle moth


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Artace. I don't see how this article can be merged into a list article but then, I'm not the Merger. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan poodle moth

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

This article is about a 2009 image that went viral on the internet. I don't believe this is actually a notable topic. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my opinion this topic is more suitable for Know Your Meme than for Wikipedia. There is also a serious absence of reliable sources regarding this moth - just a barebones Snopes article, some entirely speculative blog posts, and a few pop culture news articles (calling them "news articles" is rather generous) talking about how the photo is going viral and how cute the moth is. In the absence of any real research, one photo of a fluffy moth just isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Ethmostigmus (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. I know, I know: I started the article.  And, yes, some of the sources are "news" and "speculative blog posts."  But, it is a term that is searched (Google Trends "Venezuelan poodle moth"; Google Trends "poodle moth"), and it should have a landing page on Wikipedia.  It is in books now (Google Books "Venezuelan poodle moth").  Yes, some books are self-published, some are for kids, but even academic presses have got in on the act.  See Gardening for Moths from the Ohio University Press: "Moths can be furry-some fantastically so-like the Venezuelan Poodle Moth (species not yet formally named), whose image and discovery went viral. People were understandably enamored with this moth's huge eyes and overall cuddly cuteness...."  People are going to search for it.  Wikipedia is the place where properly-NPOV, properly-sedate, and properly-filtered and encyclopedic information can be found about it.  Hopefully, one day, it will get a scientific name and an academic article.  But, it has enough notability, I reckon, to stay.  I say keep (or, at the least, merge and redirect as a subsection of genus Artace). TuckerResearch (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect. I think the Atlantic and Snopes articles confer just enough notability for this not formally described species to be given a 1- or 2-sentence mention in the genus article. I don't think it has enough (rigorous) coverage for an independent article, but I also don't think Wikipedia would be improved by wiping away any mention of this interesting topic. Esculenta (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect. I agree; the page receives enough hits to suggest it's not completely forgotten, and a short entry in the Artace article would be sufficient and appropriate until and unless someone eventually obtains another specimen and gets it IDed more precisely. If the decision is to redirect, I can handle it when the time comes. Dyanega (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect per above. It's had a flash of fame but little indication of lasting attention. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (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.