Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adalbus: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:54, 30 October 2022 editJoelleJay (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,496 edits →Adalbus: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:32, 30 October 2022 edit undoKoA (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,866 edits →Adalbus: rNext edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	* '''Comment'''. The of ''Adalbus'' by Fairmaire and Germain runs to three pages of dense text. That's substantial coverage in anyone's money. ]] 18:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)		* '''Comment'''. The of ''Adalbus'' by Fairmaire and Germain runs to three pages of dense text. That's substantial coverage in anyone's money. ]] 18:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:It's also primary, and so does not contribute to GNG and can only be used for simple non-controversial information. ] (]) 20:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)		*:It's also primary, and so does not contribute to GNG and can only be used for simple non-controversial information. ] (]) 20:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
			*::This seems to be another subject-matter competence issue. This is not a ] where we essentially require secondary academic sources. It is a scholarly source in a peer-reviewed journal, so trying to jump on dismissing it as "primary" like it was a blog is inappropriate. In medical fields, meta-analyses, etc. are generally the most authoritative secondary sources. Over in taxonomy, the original description and any related published secondary updates (e.g., name change) are the authoritative reliable sources where the species is getting independent coverage, similar to how someone might have a biography written about them (let's assume unauthorized/independent). Literature structure varies a bit across disciplines.
			:::If there is serious doubt about an original published description, secondary sources are obviously a gold standard, but that requires serious doubt. For a species, significant coverage begins when it is described and recognized as something separate from all other species, which is kind of a big deal. That's especially when sources continue to verify that, so there really aren't any actual GNG issues being articulated here. In short, this source would be the bare minimum for passing GNG for a species if one understands how taxonomy literature works, which almost always is tied to verifying usage in other scientific secondary or tertiary sources for name accuracy. It's only when you have an initial description and that species isn't included in other monographs or updates that notability is a serious question. ] (]) 23:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:32, 30 October 2022

Adalbus

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following are proposed to be redirected to Bimiini, with categories left intact, per WP:CONTENTFORK as they duplicate the content of that article.

This would not prevent them from being split off again in the future, in line with WP:WHENSPLIT.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science and Animal related deletion discussions Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC))

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs)

Redirect. Seems perfectly in line with our P&Gs. If editors can find sufficient independent, secondary SIGCOV for a standalone they can go ahead and remake the articles individually, as they should have done in the first place. Duplicating all the reader-relevant info on genera pages into separate microstubs on each species, apparently based on a couple wikiprojects' LOCALCON that the AFDOUTCOMES essay is a prescriptive guideline, goes directly against CONTENTFORK and NOTDATABASE. Isn't there wikispecies or something where all this can be held anyway? JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect The topics do not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep Species are, by definition, notable subjects. And detailed information to meet GNG can be found for every single one. Hence why every AfD nomination of a recognized taxonomic species fails, because they are notable. Anyone arguing otherwise is expressing their own ignorance of the topic as a whole. Silver seren 01:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep As Silver seren mentioned, the subjects are individually notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep (oppose merge). This is getting ridiculous. Long-held consensus is that species are independently notable and meet GNG by definition. Content fork is being completely misapplied. There is no possible reason for redirecting these stubs. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep Every stub on a described species is expandable into at least a start class article. This is a disappointing doubling-down from an editor who seems unable to realize that they are not going to change established consensus extending to thousands of articles by creating POINTy mass AFDs. (Coming off some apparent participation at the ongoing mass creation/AFD discussion this is particularly tone-deaf.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Species always have scientific descriptions, at least by their discoverer, or else they would not have an official species name. That is enough to make them notable. Also the noms claim that the articles "duplicate the content" of Bimiini is no longer true (if it ever was) due to subsequent expansion. SpinningSpark 15:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect all The common outcome that species are generally kept has become circular logic without a directive in a guideline. A single published article describing the species – or a database entry – fails GNG, and this line at WP:AFDCO does not actually override that! Even if people believe individual species are notable, per WP:NOPAGE notable topics can still be covered in other articles. In these cases there is not enough content for stand-alone pages so they should be merged/redirected to the genus/family article, which could still have a couple sentences describing each one to be more useful than just a bulleted list of links that fail to actually provide additional information. I do not think Misplaced Pages needs literally millions of articles to be a database of species names that are redundant duplicates of a main article. Even if they could be potentially expanded to have a few sentences, there is no need to have this sort of microstub until someone gets around to doing so. Reywas92 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment According to the Wikispecies page for Zehra, Sybilla is a misspelling of Sibilla, and Sibilla is an "unjustified nomen nov." according to "Cerambycidae of the World 2017". So, these Sybilla species pages will need to be redirected to their current names, regardless of what happens in this AFD. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Since none of those articles currently exist, that would be a move of the existing articles to the new titles, not a redirect. And before doing that, a better source than an open wiki would need to be found for the name change. SpinningSpark 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Cerambycidae of the World. Esculenta (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect - Including these in a single list makes it easier for readers to find and compare species without clicking through to articles which contain no additional information. No objection to splitting out individually as articles are expanded. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting deleting the genus article with the list? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep I found this source without trying. . Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment. The original description of Adalbus by Fairmaire and Germain runs to three pages of dense text. That's substantial coverage in anyone's money. SpinningSpark 18:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It's also primary, and so does not contribute to GNG and can only be used for simple non-controversial information. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be another subject-matter competence issue. This is not a medical topic where we essentially require secondary academic sources. It is a scholarly source in a peer-reviewed journal, so trying to jump on dismissing it as "primary" like it was a blog is inappropriate. In medical fields, meta-analyses, etc. are generally the most authoritative secondary sources. Over in taxonomy, the original description and any related published secondary updates (e.g., name change) are the authoritative reliable sources where the species is getting independent coverage, similar to how someone might have a biography written about them (let's assume unauthorized/independent). Literature structure varies a bit across disciplines.

If there is serious doubt about an original published description, secondary sources are obviously a gold standard, but that requires serious doubt. For a species, significant coverage begins when it is described and recognized as something separate from all other species, which is kind of a big deal. That's especially when sources continue to verify that, so there really aren't any actual GNG issues being articulated here. In short, this source would be the bare minimum for passing GNG for a species if one understands how taxonomy literature works, which almost always is tied to verifying usage in other scientific secondary or tertiary sources for name accuracy. It's only when you have an initial description and that species isn't included in other monographs or updates that notability is a serious question. KoA (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories: