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 redirect to Clathrina. RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guancha[edit]

Guancha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I would like to propose a deletion of this genera. It does not exist, and which species do exist have new names and I have already piped all the redirects to the new species so there is no purpose to keeping the old name (anyone searching for the outdated species in an old source already gets a redirect to the correct species name). This page is an orphan (no pages link to this) and thus serves no function. An alternative to deletion could be to just redirect this page to the family page Clathrinidae. Mattximus (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page very much serves a function: to explain to the reader, who might look up a genus mentioned in a book or elsewhere, that this is no longer recognised as a genus. An encyclopedia exists to provide information to its readers, not to hide it from them because taxonomy has changed. This information can presented on a separate page or in the article on Clathrinidae, but it shouldn't be deleted, so a simple redirection without putting an explanation in the target article would be pointless. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it is incorrect, all those species names are no longer valid. Would a compromise be a redirection but placing an explanation in the Clathrinidae article about former name in case anyone looks up the genus directly (this is not a problem for the species listed, since I have already redirected with appropriate attribution of old names)? Keeping it as is makes it look like they are indeed valid. At the very least they have to go, even if the article itself is not deleted. I will do this now. Mattximus (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect? The article says that this was formerly recognised as a genus including the listed species but is no longer recognised. That looks perfectly correct to me, and just the sort of encyclopedic information that a reader would expect, remembering that encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence is correct, in that it informs the reader that this is not a real thing. However the list of species is actually invalid and should not be there, nor the taxobox. No other page on wikipedia would list invalid species. I suppose that can be called alternative #2, just keep it as a one sentence article. Is that preferable to my first compromise? Mattximus (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the list of species is not invalid, because they were previously thought to be part of this genus, and, if the article doesn't already make that clear, it would only take a few words to fix that. The taxobox can certainly be done away with. Once again. encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On another note, this discussion seems to be malformed because it doesn't contain the usual header for an AfD discussion. Could the nominator please fix this to conform to the procedure at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Clathrinidae or Keep. To merge: add a sentence to Clathrinidae along the lines of "Another genus, Guancha was previously recognized until 2009, when its members were reclassified into Clathrina, Ernstia and Nicola". Alternatively, I would also support keeping a Guancha article, if an editor wants to add a listing of species formerly contained in the Genus, along with their new names. Colin M (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge would be perfectly fine, but it should include the encyclopedic information about which species were previously defined to be part of this superceded genus. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if we're going to do that (which I agree is not a bad idea - and is backed up by some precedent, i.e. in the examples in the top-level comment below), then I would prefer having that information on a dedicated Guancha article rather than putting it in Clathrinidae. I've changed my vote to "Merge or Keep". Colin M (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here are some examples of articles for defunct/no-longer-recognized taxa: Michelia, Ergaticus, Lagynias, Oncocnemis. These may be useful case studies here. Colin M (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Clathrina (1st choice) or keep as stand alone article (2nd choice). There is no reason to delete this page/title. When a Wikipedia page exists for a no longer recognized genus, it's most frequently a redirect to the genus with which it is now considered synonymous. Much less frequently, we have articles on obsolete/historically recognized genera (a few of which are listed by Colin M above). We never have obsolete genera redirecting to a family page with the formerly included species discussed there. Under the rules of nomenclature, Guancha is a straightforward synonym of Clathrina, so I'm inclined to turn this into a redirect. Former Guancha species are now included in 3 genera, so there may be a case for keeping a standalone article to explain what species went where (but on the other hand, of the 16 species that have ever been recognized in Guancha, 14 are now placed in Clathrina, so I'm not really convinced we need a separate article to deal with the other two) Plantdrew (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I will change my opinion from delete, to *Redirect to Clathrina. Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect C'mon. This would be a no-brainer redirect to Clathrina if not for the single Ernstia entry, and that is easily dealt with by an explanatory sentence at Clathrina. I mean, it's no disaster if this just sticks around as an unnecessarily expansive redirect (so to speak), but needed it is not; might as well be tidy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I feel we have too many articles on historic taxa already, and this one is just obsolete and not so much historic. Adding a note about former taxonomic placements in the target article would be nice to do though. --Nessie (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (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.