Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saccharopolyspora salina


 * 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! 06:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Saccharopolyspora salina

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

https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/saccharopolyspora-salina States this is not validly published. This is likely because this comes from a predatory journal &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the authoritative list for that very question and we ought to abide by it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The journal being predatory has nothing to do with why this purported species isn't considered validly published. Nominator should know this by now since they participated in a previous discussion about that issue (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive_51). The venue of publication is a problem, but not because it's predatory. Bacteria names can only be validly published in a single journal, the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. There are several other requirements for valid publication which haven't been met by the paper in question (it can be seen here); there is no formal statement that a new species is being named, there isn't a description that differentiates it from previously described species, and there is no indication that the requirement to deposit type strains in institutions in two different countries was met. In fact, it looks like the authors think that the species was previously described elsewhere: "A BLAST search of the 1273 bp 16S-rRNA gene sequence of the isolate showed 100% homology to Saccharopolyspora salina. The phylogenetic tree was constructed based on neighbor joining method shows that the isolate is most closely related to Saccharopolyspora salina" The sentences I've quoted don't make any sense unless there are previously published (perhaps in a database) gene sequences attributed to Saccharopolyspora salina. Maybe LPSN has a mistake about the publication where this name first appeared? But I'm not finding anything earlier. I'm not a molecular biologist, so I'm not very familiar with BLAST searches, but searching BLAST for Saccharopolyspora salina returns a record with ID 453831. Searching the NCBI taxonomy browser for Saccharopolyspora salina (which should be using the same IDs as BLAST) returns a record for Saccharopolyspora qijiaojingensis, with ID 453831 and no mention of salina. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete in this case, as the purported publication fails to meet the requirements for valid publication on many fronts. Valid publication is required by the logic of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, so that is not a good argument to keep. However, deleting all articles on bacteria solely on the grounds of not being validly published is not a good idea; Bacteria itself isn't validly published. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (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.