Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stomopteryx splendens

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. If a article move is called for, you all can take it from here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stomopteryx splendens

[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)

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES as it doesn't have a valid name. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LepIndex lists it as a valid name, but that is indeed the only source I can find - not present in any other databases. Bit odd. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx is here. Choess (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite seeing how this states a transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx, other than noting "Anacampsis being often wrongly applied to (the genus))"? However, to muddy things a bit more, Anacampsis splendens is apparently considered a synonym of Oxyperyx splendes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it cites Staudinger's original publication of Anacampsis splendens in 1881? It's not clear to me that anyone has actually made the combination in Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SPECIES specifies that an article on a species with a valid name is kept, but that doesn't imply that a species without a valid name must have its page deleted. And there seems to be some ambiguity about the name anyway, so let's not rush to delete. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there is not enough material to establish the existence of this species as clearly defined. This volume of Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae mentions "? Stomopteryx splendens" (page 125) but that is the only explicit mention of the species by name. On page 127, there is a discussion about how the above mentioned Anacampsis splendens was a misidentified species of Stomopteryx, but the species was not determined from that sample. Doesn't seem like this is enough to save the article as a passing references. Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it worth starting a debate/RfC somewhere on what we do with dubious species? We need to think about why we give species automatic notability. If we have nothing to say about a species, except that someone described it, then the only real justifications for having an article are either (1) to record its mere existence for those who need to know if a species exists or not; or (2) to provide a foundation for further information when it appears. If we're keeping based on (1) then we should also keep articles on species that were described but are not currently deemed valid, or that got fused into other species, because our readers have a valid need to know the species don't exist, and why. If we're keeping based on (2) then we should delete articles on species that don't exist and that didn't generate enough historical information to create an article, because there will never be anything further to say about them. The result of the current AfD debate depends on this general question. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Elemimele - please advice how i can start a RfC on this topic. Hongsy (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hongsy:, I've started one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Request_for_comment,_deletion_of_dubious_species. I hope I've done it correctly, it's the first time I've tried this! The instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Elemimele (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elmidae and Choess: there are some other combinations in play, with poor presence on the internet. One is Aproaerema splendens, found on a wiki (with scans of Staudinger's description of Anacampsis splendens); I'm not sure where this combination was actually published. The other is Xystophora splendens with this as the only Google result (this is the same publication Kazamzam has linked above, but hosted on a different site), which says "The case is now as follows : the species splendens Stgr., is based on a female specimen (1. c. 90—91), and is a Xystophora Hein., taxon. The first female (1. c. 325) is a Stomopteryx s. 1. not validly described, unnamed. It needs further material, and, among it, male specimens, to unreservedly identify and describe it." On the following page, the combination Xystophora splendens is made. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Syncopacma splendens of this relatively recent paper may refer to this species, but I'm not sure where, if anywhere, that combination was made. Choess (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I finally had a chance to sit down and write the taxonomy section. It appears this article should properly be at Xystophora splendens, but between Staudinger's original description and Gozmány's commentary, there's enough for an article, and there is a species here with a properly published name. (I haven't translated Staudinger's description yet but Gozmány calls it "thorough".) I have not yet seen evidence of published combinations in Aproaerema or Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given Choess' work in laying out the taxonomic history, it appears that there is a valid description here with a rather mixed history. Keep and move as required; I'll take the words of the more taxonomically experienced wrt the target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently valid species. AryKun (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2023 (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.