THC Science

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. This discussion has the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and they should really be seen as in tandem. Like Bothriospila, the keeps and deletes were mostly talk past each other and the keeps have a numerical advantage. I suggest that an widely advertised RfC on the notability of species happen to find a consensus about the issue of keeping or deleting these articles. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adalbus[edit]

[Hide this box] 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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science and Animal related deletion discussions Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

— 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)[reply]
Delete or redirect The topics do not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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^C 01:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Silver seren mentioned, the subjects are individually notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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^Talk 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Keep I found this source without trying. [1]. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Per WP:OR, articles must not be based on primary sources. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Research articles are always primary for the research they contain[2]. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies -- research where an experiment was done or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources. It has less to do with accuracy and more to do with ensuring material is NPOV and DUE, and this extends equally across all disciplines governed by GNG, including those in science. That source would absolutely not be acceptable as the basis of an article, for the OR reasons above as well as WP:OLDSOURCES: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. JoelleJay (talk) JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:OLDSOURCES keep reading: Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. If the source hasn't been superseded, then what's the problem?

For WP:OR: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.

Please don't cherry pick! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...you really think there haven't been developments in beetle taxonomy and terminology in the last 200 years?? And per the succeeding two sentences, the statement in OR is clearly referring to sources used for particular statements; it's certainly not overriding the bolded policy that articles cannot be based on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the description of Carabus violaceus holds from 1758, so maybe less changes than you think. I also think WP:OR may need a reword. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources implies that sometimes they don't! YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which makes your statement hilarious because this scientific description of a new species is entirely straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. In any case, my main point here wasn't GNG, it was in answer to the "all we have is database entries" criticism. SpinningSpark 12:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's more hilarious is that you skipped over all the rest of the policy on primary sources, including Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should change career to stand-up comic; the source we are talking about isn't currently in the article refs at all. The page can hardly be based on it, even if it was added now. SpinningSpark 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that that source cannot contribute to GNG, both because GNG directly asks for secondary sources and because any source that cannot be a basis for an article obviously can't contribute to GNG, and so it is irrelevant that it contains "substantial coverage". JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Should the article for Homo longi exist with the sources that it has? Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not analyze the relative contributions of each source to the text in that article, but glancing at the reflist I see multiple review/summary articles that could easily be used to sculpt the article, in particular the Science one and the recap by a science journalist from The Guardian. Those seem to fulfill GNG. The fact that the other primary research articles very likely contain secondary coverage of the prior research in their intro/discussion sections also helps, although not if they're just the same group self-citing. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae in that every article is expandable where the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE and that species by definition are notable. There are sources to do so if someone feels strongly and has the time, so trying to force a redirect is inappropriate. This is not a WP:MONOTYPICTAXON where we are supposed to merge to the articles. Lautarus is set up correctly in that sense since only one species exists in that genus, but the proposed target Bimiini obviously has more than one species. KoA (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /Oppose merger as per the arguments above and at similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila. Opening more than one test case at a time on the same issue was really not necessary. Loopy30 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae, Spinningspark, and KoA, as well as the arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila, which generally appear applicable here too. When I open a general encyclopedia, I expect to find articles about species, and none of the WP:QUASILEGALISMS thrown about have shaken that basic expectation. XOR'easter (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae. It is not up for us to decide how readers might prefer to find information in this project. Some readers may want a list, some may want more specific information which can be found on a dedicated page. I do believe that species by definition are notable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL. In addition, I'm not proposing redirecting any pages which contain more specific information than exists in the list. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the nominator rather disruptively recently changed the target to an old non-consensus diff rather than the actual target page content. Editors at Talk:Bothriospilini were already complaining about the confusion this and the edit warring at the article caused, which mirrors what happened here so just making sure that remains fixed. Editors commenting before this comment should be aware of this misdirection in case they were looking at the edit-warred version that didn't have consensus and based comments on that. Apologies for not catching this sooner, there's been a bit of cleanup to try to keep up on. KoA (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per other comments above. I don't see any reason why these articles need to be separate. --Spekkios (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PAGEDECIDE for the same reason as the other AFD. All the information on the various genus/species pages would be better presented on a single page. Levivich (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't the right forum for such a large-scale policy change. Also, I don't understand why submitting an AFD but wanting to merge instead of delete. It's not like this was a procedural outcome of a different discussion. Thirdly, before User:BilledMammal made this nomination, they were alerted to a discussion at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life#Species article merges, and failed to participate. Finally - the nomination appears to be WP:POINTY an has been made in bad faith, as there was already an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI (Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal) about the nominators mass merges in this area. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oppose redirecting Tribes are taxonomic minutiae; they are rarely mentioned in sources with SIGCOV of a species. Families are regularly mentioned. Genera are inherently mentioned as the first word in the binomial name of a species. Readers might reasonably expect to find Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species in a genus article. As a test case, this AfD seems to seek to set a precedent that Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species could be found whereever it "fits" (by article size). Species might be covered in detail in an article for genus/tribe/subfamily/family. This isn't an outcome that would help readers at all. I'm much less opposed to merging species sub-stubs to genus articles than merging species to an arbitrary higher taxon. And given the states of the species/genus articles and the proposed merge target Bimiini, if sub-stubs are going to be merge it might be worth considering merging tribes into families/subfamilies. Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Adalbus[edit]