Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans

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. Each of the six discussion participants, apart from the nominator and the relister, recommended keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coeloria elegans[edit]

[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)

Recommend deletion of this stub created by banned user Caftaric. This putative species of coral is considered as one of "uncertain or disputed taxonomic validity" (taxon inquirendum) by the World Registry of Marine Species (WoRMS entry here), the standard and most current reference used for coral species by Wikipedia. Loopy30 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional detail. Article fails WP:N. While the bar for inclusion is only that it must be recognized as a unique species, this species is classified as a taxon inquirendum and by that definition is not even recognized as a valid species. Further, this putative species is not even notable for not being a species either. It is not "disputed", only "uncertain". Other than the original 19th century author, we do not find any other scientists proposing arguments as to why the taxon meets or fails the requirements to be recognized as a unique species.

The ICZN defines a species inquirenda ( taxon inquirendum) as “a species of doubtful identity needing further investigation”. This is how the World Registry of Marine Species, the most up-to date and accepted authourity, has classified the taxa.

There are no articles on the subject that can be found in a search for secondary sources (see links in header above). Only the original description by Rehberg in 1892 which as a primary source, is not enough to establish its validity by itsself. It is listed by several online databases, but one must be careful to avoid those that draw from Wikipedia itself (WP:CIRC) or are just lists of published names and have not been reviewed by experts in the field.

It would set an unadvised precedent to allow an unnotable subject to have a Wikipedia page. Of the many thousands of taxon inquirendum, there are presently only a very few that have a Wikipedia page. Those that do, likely do not warrant them either.

While the species was at one time accepted as a recognized species (2009 link here), based on a taxonomic review this WoRMS entry was updated in Jan 2016 and Jul 2018, and now is no longer considered as accepted. Note also that the name of the genus itself (Coeloria Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849) is also unaccepted, it being now considered a synonym of the genus Platygyra . Previously, in 2014, C. elegans was listed as un-reviewed, but it has now (Jul 2018) been updated and classified as taxon inquirendum. In the future, if the name C. elegans is assigned as a synonym to an accepted species, then a redirect can (and should) be made at that time.

As a side-issue, it would also be an improper precedent to allow an indefinitely banned editor to continue to create new pages for the project (otherwise they are not really banned from contributing at all). Loopy30 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Marine life notified here. Loopy30 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added "disputed" before "species" in the article, although I wasn't able to find out why the classification is disputed. I'm not a zoologist. If we can establish that scientific consensus is that it should be known by a different name, then either move the article to that other name or (if an article for the other name already exists) redirect and merge. If Coeloria elegans is a mistake in classification, it is probably a notable mistake because it was accepted as valid for a long time. All this assumes that the article was created before the banned sockpuppet was banned. If the article was created after the sockpuppet was banned, then it is eligible for speedy deletion no matter how notable the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was created in 2016 long before Caftaric was banned. If the taxonomic position of the coral becomes clearer, the page can be merged or redirected as appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article was created by Caftaric, an account now determined to be a sock of Nono64, whose other socks include NotWith, Couiros22, Wwikix, and R567. The first of these socks to be indefinitely blocked was Wwikix in Oct 2016, two months before this article was created. See discussion on WP:TOL for further scope of their edits. As the different accounts have now been determined to all be the same editor, we can state that this article was created by a banned user. Loopy30 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The species is notable even if it is contested. If it is definitely merged into another species, a redirect is in order, but, until then, this article is in order. As to creation by a banned user, we have two choices. We can be rigid and insist that banned is banned, in which case someone can request Undeletion and create the article again; or we can treat this as a case where common sense and ignore all rules should prevail and keep the article. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been researching and considering this for a while before commenting. I agree with Robert McClenon's rationale. This is a taxon inquirendum - meaning taxonomists formally recognise that it requires further investigation. It was a validly published taxon, but taxonomic specialists don't agree on its actual classification, and they think further study is needed. Because it is not a Nomen dubium (i.e. illegitimate name), I think it is irrelevant that a blocked editor created this article. All species are notable, and the position of this species (taxon) is still flagged by scientists as unclear. So, in future, it may well be subject to a WP:REDIRECT to another page, or may be renamed in some other way. For a living organism, I agree that WP:IAR is relevant, and that we should ignore the fact that a now-blocked user created this page. The specimens collected just over a century ago are clearly of either one species or another, so we should keep this page and handle it accordingly whenever taxonomists turn their attentions to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick Moyes. This is notable as a taxon inquirendum. James500 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see three questions here. First, is every biological species that has been properly documented and accepted by the appropriate taxonomic authority for its kingdom notable ipso facto? I think that the answer to that is yes. If we don't have a notability guideline to that effect, we should. Second, is a taxon inquirendum notable ipso facto? That seems to be the issue here, and I think that it makes more sense to include any taxon inquirendum than to exclude it. Third, should this article be deleted because of the misconduct of its creating editor? If it should, then it should nonetheless be re-created by an editor in good standing, and I am willing to do this, so that deleting it is simply a symbolic gesture. For that reason, ignore all rules should apply to avoid the need for a pointless deletion and re-creation. The only real issue is whether we should include a taxon inquirendum. To that question, I ask: Why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Because including an article of this particular taxon inquirendum, one that is devoid of any real "information" and not even missing any existing information that could be added to it, would set a precedent condoning the future creation of potentially thousands of such useless stubs of as yet "unrecognized" and "unaccepted" species. For example, taking the genus of cnidarians that I am presently working through, Pocillopora, there are 22 species that are "recognized" by a secondary taxonomic review, and 44 additional species names that have been published by their original author. While 24 of these additional species have already been reviewed by WoRMS and determined to be synonomous with other accepted species (which translates to creating a redirect in Wikipedia), the remaining 20 are taxon inquirendum. These have not yet been reviewed and properly determined to be either recognized (accepted), or synonymous with another species. Although they have "valid names" and have been published with a description (albeit for the most part only in primary sources by 19th c. authors in an era prior to peer review), they have not yet been "recognized" by the authoritative secondary source that we are using. It is not that they are just lacking an accepted classification either; if that was the case, they would still be recognized but placed as incertae sedis instead. Loopy30 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is User:Loopy30 proposing to delete because of the status of the taxon, or because of the status of the creating author, or a combination of the two? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Only the status of the taxon. However, the creation of a such a stub as this was typical of the aforementioned banned editor. Loopy30 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see a problem with keeping Species inquirenda if they are clearly marked as such. Obviously, this is very low notability, so arguing for deletion is not unreasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2018 (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.