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