Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boiga siamensis naranjita

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. Sandstein 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boiga siamensis naranjita

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best this is original research. At worst it's a hoax. Not supported by cited references (which aren't reliable sources). Zero Google Scholar hits. Zero Google hits apart from Wikipedia mirrors. PROD contested by page creator. Paul_012 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Boiga is boigus. The idea that species have some inherent notability (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) is predicated on there being a publication in a reliable source describing them. Google has nothing but Wikipedia mirrors to support the existence of this subspecies. Plantdrew (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No source anywhere mentions this subspecies. Probable hoax. — cnzx (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's an obvious hoax if there are no Google Scholar hits and no Google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the maximum of GF, we require a) general acceptance of status as a subspecies, and b) sufficient material pertaining to that subspecies in particular to make it worth splitting from the species article. Neither is present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable sources about this species either. And leaving this kind of OR is detrimental to Wikipedia in great measure compared to other articles . — Ammarpad (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For my opinion, this article material should be posted on Wikispecies. Here is encyclopedia project, WP:NOT#OR. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies won't take it either w/o reliable taxonomic sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - I don't think it is a hoax. This subspecies is mentioned here, a citation I have added to the article. There is often disagreement among researchers as to whether a certain population is a full species, a subspecies, a different colour morph, or whatever, and we should respect this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you winkle out the alleged description publication - "Boiga siamensis naranjita (Frank Cuesta, 2015)"? I think in this case we'd need it - that source doesn't pull enough weight, in absence of any other reference. I can't find any publications under that name at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: You may like to merge the source information at Boiga siamensis article, I do some google search, there was some quality note for verification, but not much, the other article has too much of unsourced materials need to be citation. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, that page is most likely a circular reference which copied text from Wikipedia that was originally added by Khunpolrattachana (diff). I'll remove the reference. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no peer-review sources even claiming this subspecies exists. The original creator says in the page history that tests are "ongoing", so at the very best the entire article is premature. Until and unless a peer-reviewed description is published, it's unsourced and should be deleted. HCA (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - HCA is probably right. If there is no published paper, we should not have the article, but if the subspecies is confirmed later, the article can be reinstated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably of interest: Frank Cuesta, alleged "describer" (article created by same editor as this one). I doubt there's a publication forthcoming... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my guess, I think User:Khunpolrattachana has a peer review as User:Rushenb on Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (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.