Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrothelium chulumanense

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. There is a consensus for a Procedural close and no support, on any level for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrothelium chulumanense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:Sigcov required for all articles. No sources exist for this topic beyond the single cited (primary) source containing the initial description of the species. Esculenta (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: All species are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  According to what policy? Esculenta (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NSPECIES says: Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a policy or guideline, and "species articles are kept because they're kept at AfD" is a circular deletion rationale not based on any policy. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NSPECIES is not a policy, but a sentence describing common outcomes of species' articles at AfD, and is thus a circular argument that shouldn't be used to keep the article ("this article should be kept because species article are usually kept). Now what policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close as this is nomination is strictly to prove a point. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per JoelleJay. (Incidentally – keep, as it summarizes valuable information for the reader. This is Wikipedia's key purpose: to be an encyclopedia. This article is encyclopedic; and it is not excluded by WP:NOT, therefore it is notable.) Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can no-one answer this: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Per WP:Encyclopedic: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful." Esculenta (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what I said. Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's not what you said? You called the article "encyclopedic". How you and I might define the word "encyclopedic" may be different, so I went to WP:Encyclopedic, and quoted a sentence from that page to counter your argument of it being "encyclopedic". Now back to the important question for this AfD: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Esculenta (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, a single article in a reliable academic publication constitutes significant coverage. Applying standards meant for athletes and movie actors to taxa would damage the encyclopedia, not help it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is this exemption to normal WP:SIGCOV rules for species written down as policy? Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Policies are made for the encyclopedia, and not the encyclopedia for the policies. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So there is no WP:SIGCOV exemption for species? Esculenta (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is encyclopedic, and WP:NSPECIES is good. Also, seems to be WP:POINT. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NSPECIES appears to be bad, as it doesn't address cases like these, which lack enough sigcov to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Still not seeing any policy-based rationale to keep this article. Esculenta (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / procedural close. (i) All species are encyclopedic and deserve articles in this encyclopedia, (ii) a potential lack of SIGCOV is not and should not be the end of the world, and (iii) this nomination is purely done to prove a point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From WP:TOOSOON: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." This article simply does not meet that criteria, and, according to existing policies, should not yet exist on Wikipedia. Esculenta (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the nominator, and nominators don't vote in their own AfDs; we already know the nominator supports deletion. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close Disingenuous and POINTy; you don't attempt to alter established handling of tens of thousands of articles by trying hammer a wedge into one random example. Stick to the high-level discussions for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.