Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengalia africana


 * 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. no consensus on its notablitiy or not JForget  01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bengalia africana

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No sources and hardly any information -- Ice (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Most species are considered notable, but I can't find anything to prove this one exists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it does seem to exist see;, , . Just seems to be very under researched, no real information past the taxonomy. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 02:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It needs reliable sources (those listed above are not reliable enough) and a taxobox. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what we should do, but it should b noted that the taxonomy of Bengalia is complicated, and that the expert (sort of) on it, Andy Z. Lehrer, has been editing the articles on Wikipedia. See Andy Z. Lehrer and the paper by K. Rognes there for more information. &mdash;innotata 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lehrer's book Bengaliidae du monde, p. 176, says that the taxonomy of this claimed species is dubious. Google Books displays the relevant snippet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a review of Lehrer's book in the journal Studia dipterologica, by a published authority on blowflies, Knut Rognes, which specifically addresses Lehrer's treatment of this species. Lehrer's claim is that this species is "nomina dubia, because based on female types", while the reviewer says that "However, there is no scientific principles in zoological taxonomy that restricts or bans the use of names based on female types." and "Neither can LEHRER invoke the nomen oblitum clauses for these names (ICZN 23.9) as they have all been used since 1899." I think an expert opinion would be helpful. You can read the review here, on page 458 under the title "Names deliberately ignored as nomina dubia, because based on female types". It must at least be worthy of an article explaining that it's a disputed species, and is probably notable if Rognes and Lehrer are going back and forth about it. First Light (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep It is not for us to judge which taxonomic names are valid. The practicce here is firm, that every described species is notable .  If the species should eventually be rejected it would remain notable .  If the name should be deprecated, the article would be redirected to the accepted name.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.