Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlamydophila


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chlamydophila

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

129.237.139.158 has nominated this article for deletion for the following reason: "Remove the Chlamydophila wikipedia entry. Chlamydophila is not an accepted nomenclature for these bacteria. Labeling or describing as such confuses students and scientist unfamiliar with the field. The Chlamydia community has evaluated the merit of this nomenclature and determined it to be unsupported. The published scientific report entitled 'Divergence without difference: phylogenetics and taxonomy of Chlamydia resolved.' described this exact resolution." I don't know much about the subject, so I am neutral. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now – While has proposed to "reunite the Chlamydiaceae into a single genus, Chlamydia" based on whole genome sequencing results, Chlamydiaceae is a term that is still widely used in the scientific literature (see Chlamydophila search). Furthermore this nomenclature remains a controversial issue that has not yet been resolved (see NCBI Taxonomy Database: Chlamydia/Chlamydophila group). Boghog (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. BogHog is correct. The taxonomy of these bacteria is problematic. The splitting of the genus into two different genera has never been popular. It is however the currently accepted system of taxonomy. The ultimate deciders of this issue will be the International Journal for Systematic Bacteriology where all new species/genera etc are supposed to be published. Until such time as a decision has been made this page should remain.DrMicro (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - scientific controversy does not mean it is not a valid article; this is extremely well-sourced, with an NIH article and other peer-reviewed and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * weak Keep but strong Edit. I think the nomination is enough evidence that the taxonomy is contentious, and the nominator should be asked to provide suitable text.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2013 (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.