Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctenochromis aff. pectoralis


 * 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 merge to Ctenochromis pectoralis. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ctenochromis aff. pectoralis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

there are no verifiable sources for this "taxon", the IUCN no longer have an entry for it Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it was once considered a valid taxon, it is notable. Perhaps the article should be changed to a redirect to the current taxon. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Was it considered a valid taxon though? It was an "undescribed species", my understanding is that without a formal description there is no valid taxon. This seems to have been a case of there's a fish that looks like C. pectoralis but, possibly because it was outside the known range of that taxon, may not be C. pectoralis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It was never considered a valid taxon. When taxonomists use "aff." it generally means "I don't think it's the same as (species name following aff.), but it is most similar to that species". The IUCN link in the taxonbar at the bottom of the page still works. This is one of dozens of articles for undescribed species created by PolBot based on IUCN listings (other can be found in Category:Undescribed species and subcategories). I don't see a reason to single this particular one out; they should be discussed collectively. I'm inclined to think they all should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and put through an AfD for the others, then. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Question Would it be worthwhile to have a sentence in Ctenochromis pectoralis saying that so-and-so observed a fish that resembles C. pectoralis but may be a different, related species? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge (qualified) to Ctenochromis pectoralis - I am with XOR&#39;easter on this. Unless someone can come up with a scientific report characterizing this fish (which of necessity would then call it something else so it would take a real expert to even tell if it is the same), then it isn't notable.  If the sum total of what is known about this not-formally-characterized critter is that it seems to be similar to the documented species but may not be the same, a single sentence on the other page is the way to go, and then only if we can find a source that isn't a dead link. Otherwise, Delete . Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge maybe a (sourced) sentence to Ctenochromis pectoralis per Agricolae. I was originally stumped when I first saw this AfD a few days ago after Google popped up broken link to the IUCN redlist. Since it's not a formally described species, I'd normally say delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, but a brief mention at the target page could be appropriate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - fishbase.de says C. pectoralis is from "streams in south eastern Tanzania near Korogwe. Also reported from Kenya." That report of them in Kenya is from Okeyo, D.O., 1998, "Updating names, distribution and ecology of riverine fish of Kenya in the Athi-Galana-Sabaki River drainage system", Naga, ICLARM Q. 21(1):44-53, and it places them in the Mazima Springs, Tsavo drainage (p. 50).  Looking at the IUCN page for C. aff. pectoralis it has almost zero information, except for a map that shows a range that by my eye seems to roughly correspond to the same Tsavo drainage.  It seems reasonable, given how little information we have, to conclude that what IUCN is calling Ctenochromis aff. pectoralis is the same thing that Okeyo called a population of Haplochromis pectoralis, a synonym for C. pectoralis.  The question then is what makes IUCN conclude they are a distinct (maybe just geography) and is IUCN's position on this noteworthy enough to justify a whole separate stub page when C. pectoralis itself is just a stub?  Adding to the confusion, fishbase says that IUCN lists C. pectoralis as extinct, yet a 2003 situation report from IUCN on the Pangani basin (Tanzania) says that none of the river's fish species are thought to be endangered, and it lists C. pectoralis as one of the river's endemic species. Agricolae (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The current version of the IUCN page is found here: . Buried in the collapses, it says, "The status of the population in Mzima springs is uncertain. It might be distinct from Ctenochromis pectoralis known from the Pangani drainage. More research is required."  They add, "Thought to be restricted to a single location at Mzima Springs in Tsavo National Park (Seegers et al. unpubl.)."  So, this is clearly the fish Okeyo thought was C. pectoralis.
 * Margaret Kalacska, "Land Cover, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Endemic Cichlid Habitats in Northern Tanzania", Remote Sensing, 9:623 doi:10.3390/rs9060623, similarly reports that there is present at the Chemka springs, Tanzania (on the southern flank of Mt. Kilimanjaro - the Mzima springs, Kenya, are on the northeast flank), a "Ctenochromis sp. (undescribed). Potential area of occupancy <1 km2. Closely related to C. pectoralis (Pfeffer, 1893), described from the Pangani River further downstream." (and I find two hobbyist journals from 2011 and 2015 reporting live captures). I think the best way to deal with this is to discuss these two populations of perhaps-Ctenochromis pectoralis on the C. pectoralis page as part of an explanation of the broader issue of its claimed extinction. Agricolae (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2018 (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.