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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalobacter aliiformigenes[edit]

[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)

I have no idea what went wrong here, but this species does not appear to exist. It is not present in any databases, and the single reference given ^[1] makes no mention of it, instead dealing with Oxalobacter formigenes. I guess this is either a mistake or a Latin pun (which is mildly smirk-worthy but still, don't do this kind of thing...) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Duncan, Sylvia H.; Richardson, Anthony J.; Kaul, Poonam; Holmes, Ross P.; Allison, Milton J.; Stewart, Colin S. (2002). "Oxalobacter formigenes and Its Potential Role in Human Health". Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 68 (8): 3841–3847. doi:10.1128/AEM.68.8.3841-3847.2002. ISSN 0099-2240. PMC 124017. PMID 12147479.

Add: Ooh, found it. Apparently it is a proposed species, as per an unpublished paper [1] - or so it is claimed at Oxalobacter_formigenes#Taxonomy; there not being an accessible version of that paper online, who knows. In that case, suggest punting this to draft pending publication and verification of this description. Currently we can't base an article on that source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was accepted actually, it's just in the proofing/formatting stage. So technically published for our purposes and at the notability threshold if they are actually formally describing the species, but the full article just isn't accessible yet. If they are more tentative about it being a species in the actual article though, then I'd be wary of having a page dedicated to it and wait for other sources. Definitely a bit of a too soon case, so I agree draftifying seems like the best option right now. KoA (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled with a single "i" in that paper, aliformigenes; I'm not sure which spelling is correctly Latinized. The nomenclatural code for prokaryotes mandates that new taxon must be published in a single journal, IJSEM. The LPSN database does include records for proposed taxa that aren't validly published (may be invalid for a variety of reasons, not only because they weren't published in IJSEM). IJSEM regularly publishes papers validating taxa that were first proposed in other journals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what that all says to me is that we'd best draftify this until an unambiguous published record is available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment either draftify or move to the taxonomy section as above. Both seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Elmidae and my comments above. KoA (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at least wait until something is published, ideally wait until LPSN includes a record, or even wait until validated by publication in IJSEM. Plantdrew (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2022 (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.