Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanella chrysallida


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Melanella chrysallida

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

Same as Melanella angulata (AfD below). Subject is a taxon inquirendum and not notable. Although validly published, the species is not accepted, and not a synonym of another species that it can be redirected to, merged with, or moved to. Loopy30 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Loopy30 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Melanella. Reywas92Talk 14:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what the precedent is for articles on taxa inquirenda, but usually we don't maintain articles on taxa that cannot be clearly identified (see those recent cases of unnamed sp. nov. that never received any further ID), which would also suggest deleting this and melanella. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Updating to delete, following Plantdrew's reasoning. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoRMS lists Higo et al. "Catalogue and Bibliography of the Marine Shell-Bearing Mollusca of Japan" as the basis of their record. Download Higo's book here. In the first page of the introduction Higo notes: "One unavoidable consequence of basing a work of this kind primarily on literature rather than on independent field and laboratory research is that the number of species recorded will almost certainly exceed that actually present in Nature." On the second page of the introduction, Higo devotes several sentences to discussing the work of Arthur Adams, describing it as a "major problem" due to the "brevity and vagueness of many of whose descriptions was already the target of scathing criticism [in 1895]", Higo goes on to discuss some successes confirming species described by Adams, and conclude with "even the most optimistic reviewer of Adams’ work must concede that the types of many of his species are probably lost". This species was described by Arthur Adams. Higo's treatment of the species is minimal, but gives the distribution as "recorded only from type locality" (which is fair to interpret as "nobody has collected a snail identified as this species since Adams"). WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on an animal species having a valid name; many of the names authored by Adams aren't considered valid. Delete this and any other articles on Japanese molluscs described by Adams and with status as taxa inquirenda on WoRMS and with Higo as the basis of the WoRMS record. Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.