Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhacophorus depressus

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!} 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhacophorus depressus[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)

Fails WP:NSPECIES. Rhacophorus depressus is now classified as a species inquirenda since the original description and syntypes cannot be assigned to any living or extinct population. Loopy30 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I'm not sure there's any benefit to deleting, or any harm in keeping. It is possible someone will come across this name, and assume it's a species like any other, and our current article may help to inform them. And it's not like a failed classification of a real species that can be redirected to the accepted, modern name. Elemimele (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NSPECIES isn't met here since there isn't a valid name/actual distinct species. That threshold needs to be met in order to have an article at all. KoA (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the existence of the species is officially disputed (which it appears to be to me, a non-specialist) then there doesn't seem to be any justification in keeping the page, which is likely to lead to confusion rather than clarity. If the status is confirmed or clarified the page can be recreated with appropriate RS. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 23 October 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.