Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleiodes gaga

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleiodes gaga

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

All three fails WP:NOTABILITY as an independent article. The sources alone does not suffice for this and can be deleted and ideally should be under Aleiodes as a whole. This is unnecessary WP:CFORK. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you are proposing is that the three independent species be treated together under one article about the genus. As a matter of history, let it be noted that two of the species articles had their independent existence for about 6 months before the genus article was created. It wasn't, historically, a matter of forking the genus into species. The third species, A. gaga has independent interest as a representative of new method for mass identification of species (although I don't suggest that all 179 species of A. be treated - to be honest, the association with Lady Gaga, however trivial, is was makes this species stand for the whole).

Anyway, I don't really care whether you decide to delete the species as long as the information on the species is retained - especially the unique information of the method of identification of A. gaga. Although I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on the independent existence of the other two species. And I hope for a quick decision before I waste any time on the identification by way of DNA barcoding. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes their independent notability is what is being discussed as the nomination for deletion. You might wanna expand them if you believe they are independently notable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are A. coxalis and A. tashimai also being informed that they are under consideration for deletion? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is present in their respective pages. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. But do expand these. I don't think extremely short articles on species are very helpful. Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that extremely short articles on species are not helpful. However, the most important thing about A. gaga is what it shares with 178 other species, which is the method of discovery. Perhaps that is most properly explained in the Aleiodes article, rather than an independent species article. IMHO, the next most important thing is that Aleiodes is to be distinguished from Aloeides, and then that it is named after Lady Gaga. I don't know that there is much more to be said about it in a separate article. I leave it to others to speak about the other two species - there must have been some reason why those two species were given their own articles.

Well if someone isn't willing to expand these then no point in keeping them. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The problem is that sources lack information, not that editors are lazy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to A. gaga, it is a new article, and perhaps with a bit of motivation more can be found. Who added the species to the Lady Gaga article - do they have anything to offer? I don't know that the sources lack information (one requires a subscription to read), and I haven't done any digging for other sources. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, all the more it clarifies the nomination to delete them and have the content as part of Aleiodes don't you think? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When doing WP:BEFORE I found pretty much nothing. Now, I am not the best online-searcher on Wikipedia, and even that guy is probably beaten by an expert in the field when it comes to finding sources about the species; but I strongly suspect no such info exists, because the article about DNA barcoding was about discovering the species, so you cannot expect that a few months after publication much more has been found. The topic could have potential, and maybe in three years there will be plenty of things to say about the species. But right now, the article has no reasonable prospect of expansion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at least coxalis and tashimai to Aleiodes. As noted above, there is very little to say about these except for their discovery, but if the discovery itself is the real subject there is no need for standalones. If ever any of them is studied and proven to have individual nontrivial characteristics, by all means recreate, but right now I see no reasonable prospects of expansion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Plantdrew's statements. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew's comments have been addressed above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify my position, notably in reference to WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES: well, first of all, "common outcomes" is not a guideline, so it is not binding blah blah blah.

I think most non-extinct species are notable because they exist and someone probably wrote something about them when discovering them, even if digging the original source is hard. So that is a presumption of notability: by their mere existence, biological species are likely to be studied.

But that line of thinking is based on the mental image of the zoologist-adventurer of the 19th century trekking in Amazonia to capture butterflies. Each data point is rare and precious there, so that every one of them is well-covered (even if WP editors could not find them within a week of AfD). The story here is closer to a huge computer milling over DNA data before printing its report of the day of how many new species he has found and storing it in logs that none will ever read entirely, so that most species will be ignored by scientists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was the person who created the articles on the genus and the species A. gaga, I am undecided about the outcome. But I did a quick search on the genus, and came across this Shakira, Robert Frost, Ellen, and other famous people get wasps named after them, which tells us about these famous people who are namesakes of species in this genus: Shakira (A. shakirae) Robert Frost (A. frosti) Ellen Degeneres (A. elleni), Stephen Colbert (A. colberti), Jimmy Fallon (A. falloni), and John Stewart (A. stewarti). I also found an article in the Dutch Wikipedia on another species of this genus and I don't have the motivation to look further. I'm beginning to be sorry that I got into this. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is no wp:deadline to expand the articles. The species exist and so their pages. DeVerm (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES says "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page." I do not think that it is an open-and-shut case. I would really like to hear from the person who created the first two pages why they chose those species among the thousands of Aleiodes species. It could not have been an arbitrary decision. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that nom states that these articles fail notability because the sources do not suffice. IMHO, there seem to be valid sources and WP:OUTCOMES states that they are, for that reason, inherently notable. I am not pointing to the essay as being a guideline, but to explain my reasoning. The essay says that "it is intended to be an explanatory supplement" and I was hoping it was doing exactly that: explain my standpoint. I do see that many species are missing on WP but that doesn't mean we must delete the ones we have. I am in the jungle of Panama as I am writing this, and besides a number of research stations of the Smithsonian Institute, I regularly see zoologist adventurers capturing butterflies with nets exactly like depicted in 19th century images... which means that this is not a thing of the past and such an assumption should not form a base for deletion of these articles. DeVerm (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading about the genus and I find them fascinating. I have to assume that the article on the genus is not in danger of being deleted, and will add to that. I haven't come across any information on the "original" species, though. TomS TDotO (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are recognized species, they should have articles. Otherwise they just turn into redlinks on the genus page - not an improvement. The minimal sources necessary for the particlular flavour of notability required for species on WP are there, that's sufficient. Let them sit and grow.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (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.