Talk:Sorensenella prehensor nitida

Notability assessment
Source 2 is a database, source 3 is a list of museum collection items, and source 4 plainly doesn't mention the subspecies. As subspecies, unlike species, are not automatically notable, I believe the current sourcing is insufficient to show S. p. nitida passes the general notability guideline. I'll note that Sorensenella prehensor itself does not have an article yet, and I hope it will be created so information about the subspecies can be merged if notability is found to not be present. Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And Source 1 is the formal description of the subspecies, making it a primary source. I concur with the lack of demonstrated notability and encourage the author to refocus their efforts on writing the species article and merging this work in. As things stand, I would have to support deletion of this article, if a PROD or AFD were initiated. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I confess I did this a bit backwards! I would normally have done the S. prehensor article first. That has now been done, so if the consensus is that the S. p. nitida article isn't notable enough, merging is now possible. Porrhothele (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)