Aculeata is no "No Taxon"

The "No Taxon" designation just means that the node has not been given one of the ranks recognized by the system. Often it's indeed because the node doesn't represent a taxonomically valid entity, such as with "Moths"- but at other times it's used because its rank is one that the system doesn't recognize, like subgenera.

I think Aculeata is an example of the other main use of No Taxon: it could legitimately be assigned one of the system-recognized ranks, but no one has taken the time and effort to get a consensus on giving it one.

If one is going to create a node under an Order, the system gives one the following choices:

No Taxon
Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily
Family

Given that there are Superfamilies and Families under Aculeata, that would leave us with either Suborder or Infraorder. Since both Aculeata and the polyphyletic Parasitica are part of the monophyletic Apocrita, one might argue for Infraorder.

Still, many taxonomists would argue that the taxonomic picture of the order is too complicated to consistently use such standard designations and would on general principles advocate not using them.

Family-level, Genus-level and Species-level taxa are regulated to some extent by the ICZN and are too widely-used to be easily discarded, but higher levels tend to be nebulous and without consensus on application.

Add to that the fact that we can't change a No Taxon to anything else, that would mean creating a new node, moving everything to it, and deleting the old one.

Normally, having links or books posted to a given node would prevent it from being deleted, since mere editors can't move them and can't delete any but their own, and taxa can only be deleted if they're empty. It would seem though, that the only links or books directly under Aculeata are ones you posted.