- 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. Editors who work in this subject area believe this article subject meets WP:NSPECIES which is the notability standard here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rama rama (edit | 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)
The only other sources I could find is a trivial mention that contradicts our article: [1] and this one: [2] which calls it a misidentification? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be some uncertainty about current placement, but that does not mean that the species does not exist or does not represent a valid classification. It appears in one recent checklist as a cyprinid [3] but in another, as well as in Fishbase and CoL (and our article) as Bagridae [4][5][6], and is present in a number of other checklists and publications [7][8]. CoL states "Considered in some literature as synonym of Chandramara chandramara (Hamilton)" (also a bagrid). So, the taxonomic status is murky, but that is something to sort out out and summarize in the article. No grounds for deletion. (The "misidentification" mentioned above refers to particular specimens from a particular collection, and has no bearing on taxonomic status as a whole.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any in depth secondary coverage which is the grounds for deletion. I can't access the last link but all the others are quite trivial in coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do not require "in-depth coverage" for species in excess of the original description and inclusion in multiple reliable databases. I am aware that discussions are ongoing re WP:NSPECIES (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)), but what you are assuming here sounds like one of the far-end positions in that discourse that was never going to gain majority traction, and certainly does not seem likely to end up as the conclusion. If that is your deletion rationale, then this is an assured non-starter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do require that. WP:WHYN. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- ...welcome to AfD, where we get this exact issue twice a month, which is why we are currently trying to formalize it into a special notability guideline. I'll sum this up as "Keep per WP:NSPECIES" and leave it to others to reiterate the argument. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do require that. WP:WHYN. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do not require "in-depth coverage" for species in excess of the original description and inclusion in multiple reliable databases. I am aware that discussions are ongoing re WP:NSPECIES (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)), but what you are assuming here sounds like one of the far-end positions in that discourse that was never going to gain majority traction, and certainly does not seem likely to end up as the conclusion. If that is your deletion rationale, then this is an assured non-starter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As stated above, notability guidelines are unique when the subject of an article is an officially named species. --Jtwhetten(talk) 23:48, 19 September 2024 (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.