Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treponema spirochetes


 * 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. clear consensus �  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Treponema spirochetes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous edit summaries show significant belief that this is not an actual species. Taking to AfD to resolve the matter. I gather from the source that this is not a real species, thus delete. Safiel (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete - no GHits on this term except for here. MSJapan (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)*
 * Comment - so why did you decline the CSD? If you search for the name, it only appears here. A spirochete is a type of bacteria, and Treponema is a genus, and in the listing on that article, this "species" doesn't appear. MSJapan (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined speedy deletion because CSD G3 applies only to obvious and DELIBERATE hoaxes. Your speedy deletion message, however, indicated that you didn't believe it to be a purposeful hoax, thus speedy deletion is inapplicable. Safiel (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe this article to be a deliberate hoax, but more likely a good faith error. Safiel (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I obviously don't disagree with the assessment, but I guess I don't get why, if it so obviously incorrect, and can't be fixed under any circumstances, that there's no mechanism to CSD unless it's done with intent. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like someone misread the source and so mistakenly made this article. Fieari (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this article describes the above term as the medical or scientific term for syphilis. Use a browser search tool to find the word in this article. In this article, Columbus's crew spread it into parts of Europe in the 1490's. I wonder if it is mentioned our Christopher Columbus article? I wonder if WikiProject Medicine covers this topic? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It also covered (or mentioned) in medical books on Google Books, . Here are ten (or more) listings for it on Google Scholar: . Here are two related articles listed on High Beam . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A Google search seems to be successful However, except for the books, how reliable are these sources? Well here is a peer reviewed paper from that search  - other than that I can't say. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The genus isn't the problem - we have an article on Treponema.  Treponema pallidum causes syphilis per that Columbus article.  The problem is that T. spirochetes  as a species name doesn't exist.  Treponema are spirochetes, so the terms are often used together, but they don't refer to a species.  Where you're getting the exact hits are wiki mirrors of this article, and the Highbeam stuff has commas, so you're not getting hits on a species name there, either.  Put another way so that the name unfamiliarity isn't obfuscating, it's like saying "Homo erectus walked upright on two legs", and writing an article called Homo bifemorii as a result. That's what we have here. MSJapan (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MSJapan - OK - thanks. Obviously, I don't have enough knowledge about this subject or this discipline. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this is obviously a misunderstanding, not the name of an actual species. You can find occurrences of the string "Treponema spirochetes", but more properly it should be "Treponema spirochetes", as in "we found a bunch of spirochetes, and some of them were from the genus Treponema". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: delete and do not redirect. This is not a common term like "tuna fish", or a plausible search term; it's just a mistake. Keeping it as a redirect would just be an artifact of a weird wiki-allergy against deleting things done in good faith, even when it's clearly needed. No one has seen fit to create Borrelia spirochetes, or Homo animalia, or any number of the other totally nonsensical combinations this would imply by precedent. Please don't spread mistakes all over the internet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete but not by speedy. Per MSJapan, Safiel and O. regalis. IMO this is correctly brought here as the author appears to have been a steady editor who has misread something. Even if it was a hoax, the reasons for deletion are best put forward where people can see them. In this case, the only given reference does not mention this 'species' so far as I can see. At https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10720821_Characterization_of_Treponema_phagedenis-Like_Spirochetes_Isolated_from_Papillomatous_Digital_Dermatitis_Lesions_in_Dairy_Cattle can be seen a candidate for the actual culprit in the lameness, and a good example of why a species in Treponema would NOT be given the specific name 'spirochetes' as it would lead to confusion. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Treponema are spirochetes, so, even if the article is a mistake, why not redirect to Treponema? Largoplazo (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that perpetuates the confusion. Consider the history of the Neelix redirects: redirects from made-up words end up contaminating the rest of the internet through mirrors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history of Neelix redirects, but my point is that even though the article was created by mistake, the title actually happens to be correct in a different way, in the same way that Mynah bird → Mynah and Tuna fish → Tuna are, and shouldn't be any more a source of trouble than those are. Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: This was clearly a mistake by a good-faith editor who interpreted a source as describing a particular species when it did not. We have articles on treponema, spiral bacteria and spirochaetes. This has no more value than adding a redundant article on HIV retroviruses or human apes. A redirect is not necessary, because this confusion is not something we would reasonably expect to occur often. Any argument to preserve this as a redirect would imply that we should have a complete set of redirects from terms of the form genus family members, genus order members, genus phylum members and so on. Every article about an organism would have multiple redirects of this sort.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per smart people above; "spirochetes" are any bacteria in the phylum Spirochaete, Treponema is a genus of spirochetes, and T. spirochetes isn't a thing—GB and Scholar search finds exceptions which prove the rule, eg 12. Don't know about Neelix (is this ?) but a redirect page leading to an article explaining that Treponema are spirochetes seems like it would clear things up nicely, given that apparently intelligent laypeople like Steve Quinn can find the term elsewhere and become confused. FourViolas (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Neelix created thousands (someone may have the actual figures - might be tens of thousands or more) of redirects. The majority are useless, and quite a few are incomprehensible, while others are potentially harmful. They are speedy deletable without needing to go to RfD, but some tagged speedy do go to RfD at the discretion of someone reviewing the tag. I've deleted a load, and declined others. As to redirecting, I agree with Rupert Clayton in opposing making it a redirect. All Treponema are spirochaetes, and the Treponema article will come up in the Search box before anyone starts on the next part. Keeping it as a redirect will help to perpetuate the error. Peridon (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Digital dermatitis. originally prodded this stating, "The spirochetes that live in the lesions of digital dermatitis and in the termite gut are not a single species but multiple species of the genus Treponema." But after poking around a bit I think Digital dermatitis is a better target as it quickly clarifies the whole potential misunderstanding, "Anaerobic bacteria, including spirochetes of the genus Treponema, are found in the lesions associated with the infection." ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... If DD was the only (or even the main) thing caused by Treps, OK. But what about syphilis, yaws and others? Redirecting this to anything other than Treponema would be false targetting. And unnecessary, as the main target would pop up in search before you'd finished typing. Keeping this would perpetuate the idea that it's a species. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete without redirect. As mentioned above Treponema spirochetes is not a species and never has been. This case is different from Tuna fish → tuna because "Tuna fish" and "Tuna" are both common ways to refer to the same thing. "Treponema spirochetes" is not a common way to refer to "Treponema", "Digital dermatitis", or anything really. It's just a mistake (as you can see from the lack of hits from a Google search). As such, it doesn't make sense for us to redirect it somewhere. People won't come looking for "Treponema spirochetes" and need to be redirected. Ajpolino (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2016 (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.