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 no consensus. StarMississippi 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSPECIES. Pyxicephalus cordofanus was scientifically described as a new species in 1867, but lacks confirmed syntypes. Until recently, it was classified as valid but with uncertain taxonomic placement (incertae sedis). Now, it has been reclassified as a "nomen dubium" by the primary authority (AMNH Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), and is not recognised by any other source. Loopy30 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the logic that (1) species are automatically notable; (2) it was, for a considerable time, considered a valid species; (3) in Wikipedia, if something was once notable, it remains notable. We are here to inform the public, not to maintain an up-to-date list of valid species names, and since our readers may come across this historical name, they have a right to know its current status and background. But I do understand the nominator's point, and I'm not going to lose huge amounts of sleep if this gets deleted. Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is indicating though that is never had a valid name and never was actually notable though. Mistaken identity is one of those cases where we don't automatically confer notability, and even if it were, it sounds like a very prime case for WP:IAR. KoA (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPECIES as sources say this is not a valid name and may have never been (i.e., never having true notability). We already have a pretty flexible threshold for species notability, but "possible species" don't meet that. KoA (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 03:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article clearly state the doubts mentioned in the nom. The article as it stands is informative to the reader about the status of this species. I think the article in total is net positive and does not relay any misinformation. As per the policy at WP:SPECIES, it states Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid which the article does.
The article states the name is not valid, quite the opposite of WP:NSPECIES. From the article The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists it as "data deficient", citing "continuing doubts as to its taxonomic validity, extent of occurrence, status and ecological requirements". Unknown validity is not the threshold for species notability. KoA (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are much more than just "doubts" about the validity of a species though. As a "nomen dubium", there is no extant type specimen, and we are unable to accurately compare the taxon to any other species of frog. As a consequence, the published name (and its accompanying 1876 description) is no longer recognised as a distinct species by any modern authority. There are many other nomen dubia in the scientific literature - but on Wikipedia we do not even list them under their purported parent taxa, let alone grant it the status of a stand-alone article. Loopy30 (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this emphasis can be added to the article. If someone looking for this will it is no longer recognised. I understand these are normally deleted but I am on the side of having what you just said available to the public rather than removing it FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde[trout needed] 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Fuzzy's rationale that "this information would be of use to the public" should get checked in an article's "keep" column. The question is whether this article's subject, the idea of a species, is notable even if it's not a real species. It does seem to have the usual suspects: IUCN Red List treats this as a real species. The English language's primo froggy source, Amphibian Species of the World writes about this entity by acknowledging that different scientists have drawn different conclusions about it over the years. The only radio silence I'm getting is from AmphibiaWeb and Animal Diversity Web. I'd say that we should keep this one. If we vote to delete, then I say a paragraph explaining this situation would belong on the article about the genus Pyxicephalus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IUCN no longer "treats this as a real species", but has changed its entry to reflect that it is now considered as a nomen dubium and that "this taxon cannot be related to any known species in the wild", resulting in the IUCN being unable to complete any assessment on this invalidly defined taxon.
Nor should this entry be included as a "proposed" species of the genus Pyxicephalus, since no modern authority has argued that it should be included in that genus. While it appeared as a syntype in Häupl & Tiedemann's 1978 and 1995 NHMW catalogues, it was later reclassified on the museum's list by Gemel (2018) following Baha El Din (2017) which considered it to be a nomen dubium and "based on current knowledge, cannot be related to any other species".
This assessment by El Din is the latest and most accurate information on the subject, and is confirmed by the AMNH's ASW in their latest entry. Continuing to rely on a nineteenth century description that cannot be either confirmed, compared, or subjected to modern investigative methods, cannot be considered as publishing accurate summaries of reliable scientific knowledge. This why we do not include the names of the tens of thousands of nomen dubia in Wikipedia articles - to do otherwise would be a disservice to our readers. Loopy30 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General rule of thumb is that nomen dubium do not get articles and are regularly redirected or deleted. NSPECIES only applies to valid species. A paragraph at the genus and a redirect is more than adequate. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to genus article. Nomina dubia are legion, and we have kept to a habit of not dignifying them with separate articles; our species coverage is predicated on the species being recognized and valid. This should be a short notice in the context of the genus page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 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.