Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitridae incertae sedis

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. There is clear consensus to delete after extended discussion, which has since seen no new activity in several days. There is also consensus that a quixotic appearance in a single database does not, a species, make. bd2412 T 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitridae incertae sedis[edit]

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

These are bogus genus articles created by a bot. Neither Mitridae incertae sedis nor Pyramidellidae incertae sedis are genera (or even taxons). Species names like Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis mean "a species in the family Pyramidellidae that has not been assigned to a genus". You can add "incertae sedis" to any taxon name, but it doesn't create a new taxon. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete immediately. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's agreed useful content, move as per Plantdrew's comment below; otherwise delete. Whatever happens, titles of the form "taxon-name incertae sedis" are wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual species within this placeholder taxon are themselves valid taxa, and I hope no one is arguing for removing those. However, the placeholder itself is not a taxonomic entity, and should not have an article. This goes for both nominated instances. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis is recognized by WoRMS [1] and given a separate status from the other genera in the large family Pyramidellidae. This has been done by a respected malacologist. The ICZN does indeed not mention "incertae sedis"; the closest reference I can find is art. 1.3.5, "Exclusions : as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature". On the other hand, Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis W. R. B. Oliver, 1915 has not been assigned a formal name yet, while Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis has been renamed Rissopsetia gracilis (W. R. B. Oliver, 1915) [2] . In my opinion, we should keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis until the problem is solved. It can be deleted at that time. As to Mitridae incertae sedis, the taxonomic problem has been solved and this article can be deleted (the species in this article has been recognized as Pterygia punctata (Swainson, 1821).) JoJan (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we need to be bound by some taxonomic wierdness at WoRMS. insularis is the only problematic taxon with an article? Unless there's some irregularity in the description of Epigrus insularis (i.e., it is not an available name), I don't see why we can't move Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis to that title (with maybe a note that insularis is known not to be properly included in Epigrus). Plantdrew (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this move. Species can only be given binomial names under the nomenclature codes; if the genus is really in doubt, the name can be displayed as Epigurus? insularis. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. That one taxon insularis is wikilinked from the Pyramidellidae article since 2012 and it is appropriate way. All informations, this means information, that the taxon exist is properly and completelly mentioned in the Pyramidellidae article. There are no need articles for incertae sedis taxa on generic level, especially when they contain one or two species. (Articles(s) of incertaie sedis taxa on specific level should be kept, of course.). --Snek01 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plantdrew wrote "delete" but actually argued for moving with some support, at least concerning the second article. Relisting for more discussion on that proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mitridae incertae sedis, as the references on the article both say the content there has been deleted. There's no non-bot content, and the bot content can be re-generated if there is sourcing. No opinion on Pyramidellidae incertae sedis. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 1 August 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.