Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov.

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov.

[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)

There are 3 undescribed species of Aplocheilichthys in IUCN red list. But none of them matches the description. And all of them have their informal names.

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha' and Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' are distributed in Kenya. And both of them has their own article. (Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha')

Rovuma Topminnow Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Rovuma' is distribued in Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi.

I think it should be deleted and create a new article Rovuma Topminnow. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've noticed that a lot of Aplocheilichthys species have been placed elsewhere. I think it should be checked if these 3 species have been published in other genera. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 09:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete the other two species stubs as well. As noted by OP, the genus is currently considered monotypic (Fishbase). If any of these three made it to described status in that genus before it got reduced from 89 to 1, it is not discernable from the common names (you will have to search for genus Aplocheilichthys on Fishbase, the results page can't be hardlinked). I would say it is very unlikely that these three candidates, of all species practically or theoretically assigned to the genus, turn out to share it with Aplocheilichthys spilauchen. Hence no unique identification exists - these are unknown species for which we have only an outdated and almost certainly inapplicable genus assignment. No basis for articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but what(or who) is OP? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 13:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - original poster. Short for person who started the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 02:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a mention in this 2021 article [1] suggests that 'Baringo' still hadn't been described or reassigned last year, although possiby these guys just didn't search beyond IUCN either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Wikipedia is not Science News. We already have rather too much trouble chasing around people pruning and grafting the taxonomic tree; having something where the article is "well, here we have this critter, it might be in this genus, but really, we're still working it all out" is not what we should be writing. We can wait until they do figure things out, at least on some semi-permanent basis. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that IUCN no longer maintains a record for this fish. I assume that means that IUCN no longer considers it to warrant recognition as an (undescribed) species (the alternative is that is has been described as a species, but with the IUCN record no longer working, it's pretty much impossible to determine what species it is). WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on species having been described. While there are a few undescribed species that may be worthy of having an article, I think all of the bot-created stubs on undescribed species based on IUCN records should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 28 September 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.