Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypoxylon tinctor

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. !voters pointed out that the subject is notable per WP:NSPECIES and that being short isn’t a reason to delete an article. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxylon tinctor[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)

Article is too short and unrefrenced. Should we just merge it to Hypoxylon? Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It exists and is a referenced formally described species, which is all the bar that is needed for species notability. It would not have taken long to add references that show up pretty quickly either.[1][2] KoA (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Species Outcomes is a common outcome, not policy. Per WP:NOPAGE, a separate page is not needed just because it's a species and the genus article can cover this content perfectly well. Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Species outcome is practically always the outcome because of community norms, not just a common outcome. Last time this came up, I don't think anyone could provide an example where a legitimately described species was not kept. Comments like that are typically dismissed as wikilawyering or just unfamiliarity with the topic as species are generally treated as inherently notable by the community. The only time species are "homed" at the genus level is monotypic genera (see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for other examples). KoA (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what. I still think it's BS that people think we need hundreds of thousands of individual species articles when they can be adequately covered in the genus articles. [3] says multiple species in this genus can cause Hypoxylon canker and I believe it's better to describe them together if there is very little content specific to this species. Reywas92^Talk 13:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPECIES. It is a species recognised by all the major resources (Kew Botanical Gardens, International Mycological Association, etc) and the stub has potential for expansion because of its role in tree disease. While WP:NSPECIES is not Wikipedia policy and a guarantee of WP:GNG, it has reliably being backed up in deletion discussions over the years where well established species nearly always pass. There maybe a case for some species to be treated in a genus article, but this should be decided on a case by case basis. Even if that is the approach chosen the species name should be a redirect. The proper forum for such discussions are the talk pages. — Jts1882 | talk 07:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Too short" is not a valid reason for deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPECIES: the article seems to be notable despite how short it is and sources on the Internet can be used to expand the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the problem here is that the article is at the wrong name: the mycological community seems to have accepted this species as Camillea tinctor for quite some time. Some casual searching in Google Scholar suggests that there's material available for a specialist to expand the article, including the differences between C. tinctor and more recently described Asian species of Camillea and additional host species. Choess (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I aslo support a page move for this article. I made the point on the project page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#Hypoxylon_tinctor. The move was proposed in 1989 and seems to be accepted by major resources. — Jts1882 | talk 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that move can be made pretty uncontroversially after this closes. The genus had some interesting changes where it was later resurrected, but as far as I can see, that doesn't change the current state of it actually being Camillea tinctor now. KoA (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIES and no longer unrefrenced either. KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 4 June 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.