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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icaria (genus)

[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced subject. Written not like an encyclopedia article but like a directory. Stedrick (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a stub for an article on this taxon of wasps. It is not written as a directory, but is simply a statement of the existence of the genus, which like all genera contains species. The stub has presumably been generated by a bot or in a semi-automated process. We should not be randomly deleting taxonomic stubs; the case for deletion would be that the taxonomic hierarchy described was obsolete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as this is a valid taxon, the article is a valid stub. Yes, it needs to be referenced - WP:SOFIXIT. LadyofShalott 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references are needed, but this is a valid genus and should be kept on those grounds (references certainly exist). Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you apply this rationale to all valid taxa stubs, you'll find yourself swamped. There are millions of species on the planet, all of them are notable as all of them have at least one reliable reference due to the very mechanism of how taxa are named. In the future please check the validity of the taxon first in other sources before AfDing (and better yet - source them yourself). The only reasons a taxonomic article would be deleted is if it was a hoax or if it had been invalidated/synonymized by scientific consensus. Furthermore, please reread WP:NOTDIR and WP:LIST and understand when and where lists are encyclopedic. Just because it's a list doesn't mean its scope is unfeasible, its content is bereft of information, or that it is unencyclopedic. Do not nominate something for deletion based solely on it being a list.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a verified genus. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this article, it's just a stub for now but this is how Wikipedia articles start. Like above, the only reason to delete a taxonomic page would be if it is no longer valid. Mattximus (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – The article now has a reference. A list of species in a genus article doesn't read like a directory, in my opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2011 (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.