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. Per WP:SNOW and longstanding precedent. Merging may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camponotus saundersi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not very notable. "Defenses" section might be merged into exploding animal otherwise delete and in any case redirect Camponotus saundersi to Carpenter ant or Exploding animal. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Exploding animal. Multiple searches show that the ant is only notable for its defensive mechanism, which can be adequately covered in the Exploding animal article. ƒ(Δ)² 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Srong Keep: All species are notable. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "only notable for it's defence mechanism" it may be. But its defence mechanism is possibly unique.  pablo_hablo. 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note this AfD has been canvassed at the article rescue squadron (and not in the usual way). Verbal chat 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not canvassing. By the way, I posted this at the Arthropods Wikiproject and you didn't complain about that. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been posted at the ARS in the way it was, but there is some excuse for it--it was In my opinion essentially a matter of surprise, not canvassing, for is a deletion proposal for one of the most standard, well accepted, and numerous classes of articles in Wikipedia! DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, speedy close now editors are claiming entire species are not notable? Absurd. Isn't there a some kind of notability policy which states all species are notable? 9 google news hits, including Deseret News, Daily Star. 18 google books including several text books. 13 scholarly hits.

  Wikipedia:Inherent_notability#Items_with_de_facto_notability (Essay) Items with de facto notability: Animals

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_jackknife_clam, in which the closing admin states "All species are notable" which is not yet enough to close this absurd AFD, but helps.

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dani_gecko several editors in this AFD state that "classified species [are] inherently notable", although article deleted as a hoax.

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acheilognathus koreensis "As a documented species, I believe this is inherently notable" closed speedy keep.

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interatherium "Species are generally considered inherently notable and therefore are not generally required to assert notability." closed speedy keep.

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale-legged Warbler "Much discussion has concluded that species are inherently notable"

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scaly-footed_Water_Rat same inherently notable argument given by Ten Pound Hammer in this AFD.

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Clinton,_Sr. "all species have been found in AFDs to be inherently notable" User:Edison

  WP:NBIO which failed to attain consensus states: "All species of animal, plant, fungus, and microorganisms (including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) are notable."

  Ikip (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument is based on others opinions and a failed policy? Please create this policy if you wish, but more reasoned argument that doesn't depend on failed policy might help.Verbal chat 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my arguments is based on:

1. common sense,
2. an essay which states what is "de facto notability",
3. previous AfDs in which other editors supported my position, and
4. the several text books that list this species above.

Your statment reminds me of WP:ONLYESSAY which is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

My position is much stronger than the one word some editors have posted. Ikip (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbal, try deleting the many species articles that there are here. It will never work. All species being notable is like all high schools being notable and major radio stations being notable. All three only go by community consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge etc. per the square of the f applied to delta above. Verbal chat 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all species are inherently notable. We aren't talking about a garage band or minor athlete here, we are talking about an entire species of living creatures. If we decide an entire species is not notable, while of course saying any minor celebrity that has two RS stories is, than we have lost all touch with what an encyclopedia is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A group of species rather than a single species from what I've read, and it appears that not all species in the group do the exploding ant trick ([1]), but this surely belongs in an encyclopedia. I believe all species are considered "notable". If this is to be merged anywhere it should be to Carpenter ant, but such a merge discussion should really proceed per the steps described in Wikipedia:Merging, not via AFD.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an encyclopedia! You don't leave out species simply because no one has gotten around to writing about them yet. Dream Focus 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed, all species are notable. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment despite recent calls for me to withdraw this nomination I am not. This article needs to be deleted or merged into exploding animal unless that page gets deleted (which it sshould) instantly. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't know how Wikipedia works per all of the messages that people left on your talk page from inclusionists and deletionists alike. This article will not be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am at a complete loss to. I simply don't understand. Ikip (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carpenter ant would be a far better merge location than Exploding animal.  pablo_hablo. 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After many of his AFDs closing with a result of merging to exploding animal and him saying that it is an option that he would be fine with in this AFD, he nominated Exploding animal for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --  pablo_hablo. 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedy keep actually, despite the unaccountable failure of the nom to withdraw. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (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.