Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabonia


 * 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 delete‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I do see a merge comment and a possible redirect for a couple of the nominated articles but the general consensus seems to be to delete, since the merge comment also mentions that there's almost no information in any of the articles. Aoidh (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Gabonia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article for a monotypic taxon describes a genus that has not been validly published by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Its primary source is the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper claiming discovery of the novel species Gabonia massiliensis, but it has not been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology in the following seven years. This suggests that the genus is insufficiently described to warrant the approval of these taxa. Its other source of the UniProt database and Wikidata Taxonbar link to the NCBI Taxonomy Database are trival references. In the former, a single heat shock protein is listed based on the genome described in the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper without any evidence that the gene is distinct from other bacteria of the taxonomic family Porphyromonadaceae. In the latter, the page only restates details from the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper's genome annotation while noting "Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information" because this site scrapes all papers claiming new taxa, regardless of whether the bacteria's unique properties were sufficiently described BluePenguin18 🐧  ( 💬 ) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC) I am bundling Gabonia massiliensis, Lascolabacillus, Lascolabacillus massiliensis, and Sanguibacteroides with this nomination. I recently overhauled the Porphyromonadaceae article on this taxonomic family and found these five articles on taxa not validly published under the ICNP. All of them were created by User:Daniel-Brown, who appears to have been banned/blocked in 2016 due to sock-puppeting. Their deletion would have a minimal impact, as their page views are low, and they only wikilink between each other. I reached out to members of the WikiProject Biology Discord channel, and I found agreement that while there is not an official taxonomy-specific notability policy, the relevant authority of ICNP publication should take precedence. None of these articles are longer than a single sentence, and I was unable to find sources that provide additional information beyond this article that describes Sanguibacteroides justesenii as elevated in untreated patients with major depressive disorder. However, this source's minor reference to genetic similarity to the originally described S. justesenii sample does not address the issue of whether this taxon was properly named, leading me to recommend deletion for all five articles until their valid publication under the ICNP to write articles with sufficient info. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. BluePenguin18 🐧  ( 💬 ) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Are not valid, and do not meet GNG or SIGCOV. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Merge. Way too short with almost no information; merge into Porphyromonadaceae. Spaceeditor123 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Gabonia, Gabonia massiliensis and Sanguibacteroides. Maybe redirect Lascolabacillus to Fermentimonas and Lascolabacillus massiliensis to Fermentimonas caenicola, per (the authors who originally published Lascolabacillus found "100% 16S rRNA sequence identity" between the type strain of validly published Fermentimonas and the strain designated as the type of Lascolabacillus). I say "maybe redirect", because LPSN doesn't list Lascolabacillus as a synonym of Fermentimonas, and the authors of Lascolabacillus have already demonstrated that they're not concerned with taxonomic rigor; I'd be fine with deletion as well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2023 (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.