- 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. The consensus is to Keep this article. If the nominator wishes to introduce changes in how deletion discussions about this subject are decided, they are encouraged to introduce an RFC on a relevant policy or WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Harpalus numidicus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Harpalus numidicus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Species is not notable as per WP:NOTE, note number 1: "... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources". Species is not covered anywhere from what I can see outside of databases. EvilxFish ( talk) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Validly described species [1] (although the Carabidae.org link is broken since they went to a subscription model - fixed to CoL), and being present in these databases is what we go by when determining notability of species. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Please familiarize yourself with the practices regarding taxonomic articles before engaging in deletion debates about them. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note, because I can see a confusion regarding databases and species here: any validly described species does perforce have a citable, published description (in this case:
[2]). --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- But that does not mean it has been significantly covered by independent secondary sources as per WP:GNG. If all one needs to prove a species is notable enough is a database entry, perhaps a bot should be created to scrape databases and flood wikipedia with millions of stubs relating to species that have no coverage at all. Even if the common outcome is these articles are seldom if ever deleted, that outcome I'd argue is against WP:GNG. We are building an encyclopedia, not a database which is more the job of wikidata. EvilxFish ( talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, I was unaware that existed. I must stress, that is not a wikipedia policy as noted at the top of the page just a common outcome. I will take your word on the description and such being published, unfortunately due to the language barrier (and a difficulty finding a link to it online), I cannot check it! Even if such a published description exists, am I right in assuming it is a primary reference? If yes then I would argue that notability as per WP:GNG is still not satisfied because of both the "sources" bullet point and "significant coverage". Finally I would argue just because an outcome commonly occurs does not mean that outcome is correct as per policy.
EvilxFish (
talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are common outcomes, very common outcomes, and invariable outcomes. This is the latter. Probably from the beginning of Wikipedia, and certainly for the last decade, no article on a validly described recent species has been deleted for notability reasons. That this is only codified in the form of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is a perpetual annoyance, and results in this kind of abortive nomination roughly every 2-3 months. I can only suggest that if you disagree with this practice, you should bring it up at a more central venue. (The latest broadly related kerfuffle is here) On a case-by-case basis, this is not going to happen. - Re bots, we have had several extensive bot runs that have added thousands of species articles. The latest batch that I'm aware of was done by Qbugbot. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note, because I can see a confusion regarding databases and species here: any validly described species does perforce have a citable, published description (in this case:
[2]). --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. As already stated, described species always pass notability once picked up by other scientific organisations and databases. Wikipedia requirements for secondary sources don't fit clearly with scientific publications, which can be a mix of primary source (the results) and secondary source (introduction and parts of discussion). The policy cited above says "databases ... may not actually support notability when examined", not that they don't. If we examine databases published by organisations dedicated to the study of such species and where entries are curated by experts the field, who have accepted the species is valid, then surely they count as some form of secondary or tertiary source. When they don't accept the species then that is usually grounds for deletion. —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we accept a database as a secondary source it is by no means "significant coverage" and consists of nothing more than very basic information for any particular entry. It it was a review article for example that spoke about the species or if a review existed about certain features of it etc, that would constitute significant coverage. I just feel that essentially this encyclopedia will become a database itself if this is the line we pursue. Every chemical, every protein, etc would all be notable, yet projects like the chemistry project will not accept that. Anyway as I made clear above, I am going to try work towards a policy change that changes what we currently accept.
EvilxFish (
talk) 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you do so, please post a link to it here. I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but what you are proposing is a major change of a long-standing consensus.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- certainly, I am discussing it here @ SchreiberBike: EvilxFish ( talk) 01:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you do so, please post a link to it here. I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but what you are proposing is a major change of a long-standing consensus.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we accept a database as a secondary source it is by no means "significant coverage" and consists of nothing more than very basic information for any particular entry. It it was a review article for example that spoke about the species or if a review existed about certain features of it etc, that would constitute significant coverage. I just feel that essentially this encyclopedia will become a database itself if this is the line we pursue. Every chemical, every protein, etc would all be notable, yet projects like the chemistry project will not accept that. Anyway as I made clear above, I am going to try work towards a policy change that changes what we currently accept.
EvilxFish (
talk) 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as others have said, but I think we can expand that from a stub. The BHL has a copy of the book referenced here, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/183282, pg 112 describes H. numidicus, is there a way we could find a person from Wikipedia who knows French to help us translate? Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours ( talk) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Also see
WP:Verifiable, databases, per se, are not a problem. --
Enos733 (
talk) 23:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:verifiable is about good sources, not ones that generate notability. Also as I have stated before how can the invocation of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES be valid when that isn't even a policy, just a common outcome? Surely WP:GNG should override that. Anyway I am glad to see you taking part in the policy discussion and hopefully we can address this there. EvilxFish ( talk) 08:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As others have noted, this meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Harpalus (Harpalus) numidicus Bedel, 1893". Catalogue of Life. Species 2000: Leiden, the Netherlands. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
- ^ Bedel, L. (1893). "Diagnoses de coléoptères d'Algérie". L'Abeille, Journal d'Entomologie. 28: 102–104.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 13 January 2023 (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 keep. The consensus is to Keep this article. If the nominator wishes to introduce changes in how deletion discussions about this subject are decided, they are encouraged to introduce an RFC on a relevant policy or WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Harpalus numidicus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Harpalus numidicus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Species is not notable as per WP:NOTE, note number 1: "... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources". Species is not covered anywhere from what I can see outside of databases. EvilxFish ( talk) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Validly described species [1] (although the Carabidae.org link is broken since they went to a subscription model - fixed to CoL), and being present in these databases is what we go by when determining notability of species. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Please familiarize yourself with the practices regarding taxonomic articles before engaging in deletion debates about them. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note, because I can see a confusion regarding databases and species here: any validly described species does perforce have a citable, published description (in this case:
[2]). --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- But that does not mean it has been significantly covered by independent secondary sources as per WP:GNG. If all one needs to prove a species is notable enough is a database entry, perhaps a bot should be created to scrape databases and flood wikipedia with millions of stubs relating to species that have no coverage at all. Even if the common outcome is these articles are seldom if ever deleted, that outcome I'd argue is against WP:GNG. We are building an encyclopedia, not a database which is more the job of wikidata. EvilxFish ( talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, I was unaware that existed. I must stress, that is not a wikipedia policy as noted at the top of the page just a common outcome. I will take your word on the description and such being published, unfortunately due to the language barrier (and a difficulty finding a link to it online), I cannot check it! Even if such a published description exists, am I right in assuming it is a primary reference? If yes then I would argue that notability as per WP:GNG is still not satisfied because of both the "sources" bullet point and "significant coverage". Finally I would argue just because an outcome commonly occurs does not mean that outcome is correct as per policy.
EvilxFish (
talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are common outcomes, very common outcomes, and invariable outcomes. This is the latter. Probably from the beginning of Wikipedia, and certainly for the last decade, no article on a validly described recent species has been deleted for notability reasons. That this is only codified in the form of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is a perpetual annoyance, and results in this kind of abortive nomination roughly every 2-3 months. I can only suggest that if you disagree with this practice, you should bring it up at a more central venue. (The latest broadly related kerfuffle is here) On a case-by-case basis, this is not going to happen. - Re bots, we have had several extensive bot runs that have added thousands of species articles. The latest batch that I'm aware of was done by Qbugbot. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note, because I can see a confusion regarding databases and species here: any validly described species does perforce have a citable, published description (in this case:
[2]). --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. As already stated, described species always pass notability once picked up by other scientific organisations and databases. Wikipedia requirements for secondary sources don't fit clearly with scientific publications, which can be a mix of primary source (the results) and secondary source (introduction and parts of discussion). The policy cited above says "databases ... may not actually support notability when examined", not that they don't. If we examine databases published by organisations dedicated to the study of such species and where entries are curated by experts the field, who have accepted the species is valid, then surely they count as some form of secondary or tertiary source. When they don't accept the species then that is usually grounds for deletion. —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we accept a database as a secondary source it is by no means "significant coverage" and consists of nothing more than very basic information for any particular entry. It it was a review article for example that spoke about the species or if a review existed about certain features of it etc, that would constitute significant coverage. I just feel that essentially this encyclopedia will become a database itself if this is the line we pursue. Every chemical, every protein, etc would all be notable, yet projects like the chemistry project will not accept that. Anyway as I made clear above, I am going to try work towards a policy change that changes what we currently accept.
EvilxFish (
talk) 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you do so, please post a link to it here. I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but what you are proposing is a major change of a long-standing consensus.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- certainly, I am discussing it here @ SchreiberBike: EvilxFish ( talk) 01:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you do so, please post a link to it here. I'm not convinced that you are wrong, but what you are proposing is a major change of a long-standing consensus.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we accept a database as a secondary source it is by no means "significant coverage" and consists of nothing more than very basic information for any particular entry. It it was a review article for example that spoke about the species or if a review existed about certain features of it etc, that would constitute significant coverage. I just feel that essentially this encyclopedia will become a database itself if this is the line we pursue. Every chemical, every protein, etc would all be notable, yet projects like the chemistry project will not accept that. Anyway as I made clear above, I am going to try work towards a policy change that changes what we currently accept.
EvilxFish (
talk) 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as others have said, but I think we can expand that from a stub. The BHL has a copy of the book referenced here, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/183282, pg 112 describes H. numidicus, is there a way we could find a person from Wikipedia who knows French to help us translate? Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours ( talk) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Also see
WP:Verifiable, databases, per se, are not a problem. --
Enos733 (
talk) 23:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:verifiable is about good sources, not ones that generate notability. Also as I have stated before how can the invocation of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES be valid when that isn't even a policy, just a common outcome? Surely WP:GNG should override that. Anyway I am glad to see you taking part in the policy discussion and hopefully we can address this there. EvilxFish ( talk) 08:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As others have noted, this meets WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Harpalus (Harpalus) numidicus Bedel, 1893". Catalogue of Life. Species 2000: Leiden, the Netherlands. Retrieved 13 January 2023.
- ^ Bedel, L. (1893). "Diagnoses de coléoptères d'Algérie". L'Abeille, Journal d'Entomologie. 28: 102–104.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 13 January 2023 (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.