Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon highfin barb


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neon highfin barb

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Species that "has yet to be scientifically described." Only ref is "personal experience," which is, well, not a ref. Looks like this is completely original research about a species that isn't recognized in the scientific community.  Graymornings (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I did search for 'Oreichthys sp. "drapefin"' and did get a few results, but those seemed to not be scientific studies. Per WP:OR Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also searched with few results, including within aquarium-related sources.  As Graymornings suggested, it does seem to be an article made up only of original research. FaerieInGrey (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. There's a lot of unpublished original research here that needs to be removed, but the fish itself does appear to (a) exist and (b) be notable.  Google search for "neon highfin barb" (in quotes) turns up only the article and a blog entry apparently by the author of the article.  This name is just not in common use, despite the article's assertion that fish are commonly sold under this name in the aquarium trade.  On the other hand "drapefin barb" does seem to be a common name for a fish that is available for purchase but which has not yet been allocated a binomial name, perhaps because there is some dispute over which genus it belongs in.  Note that these fish are sometimes identified as Oreichthys cosuatis, and that article also mentions the OR regarding the DNA profiling of them.  We do have some reliable sources:  reports the theory dismissed in the article that this fish is a species of Puntius. In the same magazine we have .  Also published (although not available online) is Kalodimos N. Courtship Behavior of the Drape Fin Barb, Oreichthys sp. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine, 2002.  I don't know the content but it appears from the description to be an entire article about this fish. JulesH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the OR. I would suggest following the close of the AFD it is moved to Drape fin barb, which seems to be its most common name. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oreichthys umangii appears to be another article about the same fish, and gives an additional reference which provides a binomial name, although this is apparently yet to be generally accepted. Changing my !vote to merge to oreichthys umangii. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it occurs to me that I don't have a reliable source stating that these are the same fish. So maybe the merge isn't appropriate. Not sure what to do here. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The original article was pure OR, and you did a great job cleaning it up. I'm not sure what to do here, either. It's either the same fish as Oreichthys umangii or it's a species that may or may not have been scientifically described. Depending on that, it's a merge/redirect or a delete. I think we need an expert. I listed it at WP:FISH to see if anyone over there has an opinion, so maybe that'll get us somewhere.  Graymornings (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems to be an article whose time has not yet come. It makes little sense, to me, to have an article about an uncertainly identified animal, unless the article contains all the details necessary to make the identification (which would not be practical or encyclopedic). Better to wait until the taxonomy is worked out. Tim Ross   (talk)  17:42, 19 January 2009 (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.