- 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 17:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dermophis donaldtrumpi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See its Talk page, this species isn't even formally registered yet nor formally published. To quote @ Dyanega:: "Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedibus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons. ".
The only sources are newspapers running the same story. I don't think this is sufficiently notable (yet), it's just conjecture of a name made for one scientist's gesture. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 03:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Completely non–policy based nomination: whether it's "formally registered" has nothing to do with anything, and by the way we do have an article on Speedibus rex. Notability abundantly established by independent stories (not "the same story") in Washington Post, Guardian, SF Chronicle, The Hill, USA Today (cited in the article) plus People, CNN, The Independent, Newsweek, BBC and many more. E Eng 04:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax.
E
Eng
04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see
[1] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion?
E
Eng
05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out:
WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time.
E
Eng
05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like you need to work to change WP:N. At this point I think you should have the last word. E Eng 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time.
E
Eng
05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out:
WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see
[1] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion?
E
Eng
05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax.
E
Eng
04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per EEng. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. It's clearly notable, it's well sourced, and it's accurate based on the best information currently available. Brad v🍁 04:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as cited by E. I would also question the neutrality of the lead para. It implies that the auction to name the species was based on a false premise, and that there may not be a new species to name. The Guardian source says "The scientists who found the 10cm amphibian have agreed to use the name Dermophis donaldtrumpi when they officially publish the discovery in scientific literature." Note when, not if. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to wait for this ridiculous AfD to close before dealing with that kind of stuff. Statements like "it has yet to be confirmed as a new species" need to be sourced just like anything else, or they'll have to be removed. E Eng 05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
RebeccaGreen: "When not if" indeed! *When* this is a real species, the article should exist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before.
Brad
v🍁
05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our
notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up.
Brad
v🍁
05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely
WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus,
WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly.
Brad
v🍁
06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv Okay, you're right fair enough for now. Let this this be closed....- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 06:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus,
WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly.
Brad
v🍁
06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely
WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our
notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up.
Brad
v🍁
05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before.
Brad
v🍁
05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald L. Trump. wumbolo ^^^ 06:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the species itself is clearly real, and notable because of the coverage of the proposed name, whether or not that becomes its real name. Pinkbeast ( talk) 09:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the species exists, the only thing missing is the peer review of the name. There isn't any reason for deletion -- Joergens.mi ( talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per the above, meets WP:GNG. Semi Hyper cube 12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as meets GNG, no valid reason presented for deletion. Catrìona ( talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficient coverage for GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The species is real and has been confirmed and complies with the GNG as well as the many sources Wkc19 :) ( talk) 15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 17:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dermophis donaldtrumpi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See its Talk page, this species isn't even formally registered yet nor formally published. To quote @ Dyanega:: "Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedibus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons. ".
The only sources are newspapers running the same story. I don't think this is sufficiently notable (yet), it's just conjecture of a name made for one scientist's gesture. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 03:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Completely non–policy based nomination: whether it's "formally registered" has nothing to do with anything, and by the way we do have an article on Speedibus rex. Notability abundantly established by independent stories (not "the same story") in Washington Post, Guardian, SF Chronicle, The Hill, USA Today (cited in the article) plus People, CNN, The Independent, Newsweek, BBC and many more. E Eng 04:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax.
E
Eng
04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see
[1] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion?
E
Eng
05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out:
WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time.
E
Eng
05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like you need to work to change WP:N. At this point I think you should have the last word. E Eng 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time.
E
Eng
05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out:
WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- <rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see
[1] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion?
E
Eng
05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax.
E
Eng
04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per EEng. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. It's clearly notable, it's well sourced, and it's accurate based on the best information currently available. Brad v🍁 04:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as cited by E. I would also question the neutrality of the lead para. It implies that the auction to name the species was based on a false premise, and that there may not be a new species to name. The Guardian source says "The scientists who found the 10cm amphibian have agreed to use the name Dermophis donaldtrumpi when they officially publish the discovery in scientific literature." Note when, not if. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to wait for this ridiculous AfD to close before dealing with that kind of stuff. Statements like "it has yet to be confirmed as a new species" need to be sourced just like anything else, or they'll have to be removed. E Eng 05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @
RebeccaGreen: "When not if" indeed! *When* this is a real species, the article should exist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before.
Brad
v🍁
05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our
notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up.
Brad
v🍁
05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely
WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus,
WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly.
Brad
v🍁
06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bradv Okay, you're right fair enough for now. Let this this be closed....- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 06:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus,
WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly.
Brad
v🍁
06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely
WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our
notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up.
Brad
v🍁
05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before.
Brad
v🍁
05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald L. Trump. wumbolo ^^^ 06:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the species itself is clearly real, and notable because of the coverage of the proposed name, whether or not that becomes its real name. Pinkbeast ( talk) 09:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the species exists, the only thing missing is the peer review of the name. There isn't any reason for deletion -- Joergens.mi ( talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per the above, meets WP:GNG. Semi Hyper cube 12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as meets GNG, no valid reason presented for deletion. Catrìona ( talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficient coverage for GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The species is real and has been confirmed and complies with the GNG as well as the many sources Wkc19 :) ( talk) 15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.