Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keurbosia

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 merge‎ to Soom Shale. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article several editors mention a selective Merge as an ATD so I'm closing with that option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keurbosia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Species name is not formally published, and therefore fails the "validly published criterion" of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is a lack of coverage otherwise that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES appears to be a sufficient criterion, but not a necessary one, to keep a species. While not having its name formally published, Keurbosia has been discussed in research articles (outside of the Alan Male reconstruction), with well-referenced information about the specimen. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Redirect and merge to Soom Shale, I've been convinced by the arguments below that there isn't enough notability (by the way, does that automatically count as G7?). Support recreating it when the species will be formally published. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It might be good to include some of the material in the Soom Shale article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Good idea, this could go for a sort-of merge then. Thanks! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this is a nomen nudum would, in my opinion, not necessarily mean that we can't have an article, if there was sufficient coverage; Australopithecus prometheus is a nomen nudum and certainly worthy of an article. (We would probably have to lose the taxobox, at any rate) However, I can't see the coverage here. Of the references given, the first does not even mention the term; the second [1] is a peculiar case of "featured passing mention" - they could have used an eggplant for the same purpose; the third is a pretty illustration, but nothing more. I can't access the fourth, but based on its sparse use in the article I assume that it also merely consists of an illustration. That's not enough, and the automatic notability of a validly described taxon isn't there to offset the lack of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference mentions the specimen otherwise referred to as Keurbosia, although not by that name (page 5, section Enigmatics), describing it in a moderate amount of detail but adding that [t]his fossil awaits a full description. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting & partial merge, as suggested above, seems sensible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPECIESOUTCOMES only applies to validly published names, and Keurbosia lacks SIGCOV as well. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be discussed in Soom Shale, sourced to Gabbott et al. 2017, but as Gabbott doesn't use the name Keurbosia, this title should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant material merged at Soom Shale. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge or if this article should be straight out Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just as Chaotic Enby has already done. Can be split out in the future from Soom Shale if the name is validly published. Fritzmann (message me) 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that "Kerbousia" will be the name used in any future publication. I would hope that a future publication would mention that "Kerbousia" was a word that been previously applied to these fossils, but even if Kerbousia is mentioned in that publication, an editor creating an article under a different name might not check for a Kerbousia redirect and retarget it to the new name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.