Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channa torsaensis

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. Although consensus is to redirect to Channa quinquefasciata, there is no article for that. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Channa torsaensis

[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)

Only source was a predatory journal doi:10.18782/2320-7051.7131 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep two potential sources in taxonbar, as well as Dey, Nur, Raychowdhury, Sarkar, Singh & Barat, 2018 mentioned in the taxobox. Seems like enough RS without even going to the library.
awkwafaba (📥) 02:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the predatory journal + a database that cites the predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect At first blush, the fact that a species has been described in a predatory journal should not be a problem. With taxonomic descriptions, the proof is in the pudding; if the major databases take them on and perpetuate them without comment, then things are usually fine for our purposes (these guys do check, more solidly than we can). However, in this case the assignment is actually considered doubtful. This article suggests synonymy to Channa quinquefasciata (We review recent descriptions of species of the genus Channa and conclude [...] that C. torsaensis is not sufficiently diagnosed from C. quinquefasciata), and Eschmeyer's Catalogue goes with that reading (Current status: Synonym of Channa quinquefasciata Praveenraj, Uma, Knight, Moulitharan, Balasubramanian, Bineesh & Bleher 2018.) This suggests that the article should be redirected to Channa quinquefasciata, which would have to be established as a stub. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added the word "disputed" to the lede. If the name Channa torsaensis has not been explicitly rejected, perhaps it should be kept until then, and the reference from a predatory journal reinstated. Anyone interested in creating a stub for another species in this genus may want to start with the information in the corresponding page in Wikidata, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q117204868 for Channa quinquefasciata and in WikiSpecies. Also, Ralf Britz, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21341156 the researcher who disputes the name, might be worth creating an article about. See also species:Ralf_Britz Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae. It looks like the name was initially accepted into FishBase and transferred from there to WoRMS, but currently, searching on Channa in FishBase and clicking on the entry for C. torsaensis gets the message "Species name is not in the public version of FishBase." Eschmeyer's Catalog also synonymizes it with C. quinquefasciata. Since C. torsaensis is not accepted as a distinct species by these taxonomic authorities, I think redirection is appropriate. Choess (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae (or delete if nobody gets around to writing an article for C. quinquefasciata by the time this AfD closes). It is interesting that ITIS has a record for it. ITIS has been partially down for a couple days (search function works, but taxon records can't be viewed), so I don't know what it actually says. ITIS generally gets their fish taxonomy from Eschmeyer's Catalog, and doesn't get updated particularly frequently, but I'd guess the ITIS record would indicate that this species was initially accepted by Eschmeyer. Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (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.