Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrothelium chulumanense

Astrothelium chulumanense

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]