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. (redirected) (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasomia[edit]

Sarasomia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't see how an article on a taxonomic genus comprised of one sentence clears the GNG bar. This page should be deleted and the sentence on the genus merged into the higher taxonomic classification. Jhortman (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment If you want to merge then turn the article into a redirect then an AfD isn't required. Rotten regard Softnow 03:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't know into which article this article should be merged. The article for this genus' family, Veronicellidae, has this genus in a list, but none of the other genera in the family have any descriptions associated with them there. In fact, virtually all of the pages for the genera the Veronicellidae family are substantially similar to this article. Perhaps we need a wider-scope discussion on whether a taxonomic classification is inherently notable, because if it is not, most of those pages should be deleted, as well. I don't know what the proper venue for that discussion is, however.-Jhortman (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I've done a lot of searching, and there seems to be no clear policy or essay on the inherent notability (or lack thereof) on taxonomic classifications. The WP:GNG policy is the most general definition of notability, and a one-sentence article with a reference to a database cataloging its existence doesn't appear to me to meet that criteria. An analogy can be drawn from the astronomical guideline for notability, which states, "The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability." Basically, I think this falls into the Existence does not equal notability category. If there are not any verifiable, reliable references to support the notability of a classification, it can be listed on the main page of its parent classification until notability can be established. -Jhortman (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Hello folks, I am a founder member of Project Gastropods and a member of WikiProject Tree of Life; I started on Wikipedia in 2007 and have over 70,000 edits made by hand. I also believe that the question of whether individual species (or in this case individual genera) are actually notable has in fact been discussed and well established already, many years ago. I will talk to the admin who started our project in 2004, and maybe he can point you towards some of the relevant discussions on this question. Also honestly, I don't think it would be wise to start trying to deleting all the short stubs on biological taxa, as you will find that you have a riot on your hands from all the numerous projects involved! Taxonomy is the bedrock of biology, and Wikipedia contains many hundreds of thousands of short stubs about species and genera of organisms such as plants, insects, fungi, etc, etc, etc, etc, all across the board from bacteria and single-celled organisms all the way up to vertebrates. One simply cannot compare living genera to astronomical objects. The number of astronomical objects is infinite, whereas the number of living genera is very finite indeed, and man-made extinction is making that number less every day. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - This has been discussed over and over again in the past, and the general agreement was that all living things are notable through a de facto notability Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Anyway, I've added a few more items and one more reliable reference to the article. JoJan (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to make an observation: The family of leatherleaf slugs, Veronicellidae, includes the genera Sarasomia and Sarasinula. The only species of Sarasomia mentioned anywhere is Sarasomia plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf slug. Sarasinula plebeia, the bean leatherleaf slug, is found in the Caribbean. Sarasomia plebeia was described by P. Fischer in 1898; Sarasinula plebeia was described by the same in 1868. idtools.org writes that Sarasomia plebeia and Sarasinula plebeia are synonyms—as are the common names "Caribbean leatherleaf" and "bean leatherleaf"—so maybe a merge is in order, if the sources cited there support this or if idtools.org is a reliable source in its own right. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing our attention to this. We will attempt to sort this out. Invertzoo (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I am currently attempting to determine the proper use of the name. However, the Veronicellidae have not been much studied, so it may not necessarily be entirely clear which genus this species should be grouped under, assuming they are in fact two names used for the same species, which we cannot be absolutely sure of without careful searches of the literature. But in any case, if the other name appears to be more correct, then this page will be turned into a useful redirect page. It certainly should not be deleted. Invertzoo (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of the Sarasomia/Sarasinula issue is tangential to the deletion discussion and should be held at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Are Sarasomia and Sarasinula synonymous?". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete I have to agree with an earlier comment that they are inherently notable, even if they are only one sentence for now. When it comes to science, I tend to err on the side of not delete. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion at Wikipedia_talk: WikiProject Gastropods #Are Sarasomia and Sarasinula synonymous? it has been agreed that Sarasomia and Sarasinula are in fact synonyms. I could easily make the redirect, but as I'm an administrator involved in this discussion, I'd rather leave this to someone uninvolved. JoJan (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I made the necessary redirects. However I have not touched the AFD tag, which is currently still up on the redirect page. There are two issues here.

1. The "not notable" objections to the genus article Sarasomia (which now appears to be an accidental but officially published synonym name), would they apply also to the genus article Sarasinula? If all genera of organisms are inherently notable, as seems to have been agreed upon in careful discussions numerous times before, then a one-sentence genus stub with a taxobox is acceptable, at least from the notability viewpoint.

2. The other issue is that a one-line stub with one reference may be too bare-bones minimal to please editors who espouse Immediatism. For those of us who espouse Eventualism such a short stub is acceptable, if less than ideal. I have advised the person who created the stub that he should try from now on to make sure that his stubs contain more content right from the start. He has agreed to do this.

I hope we can now come to agreement on closing this discussion. Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect to Sarasinula. I don't understand the subject well enough to offer a good argument for either side versus the other, but commonly-recognised genera (proof) are definitely notable and should never be converted into redlinks except in WP:TNT cases. Either it should be kept as a separate genus or redirected as an alternate name, but either way, someone's going to be looking for this topic, so we shouldn't say that we have no information on it. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (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.