Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorcopsis

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 Consolidate with Dorcopsis (genus). There is consensus that this is redundant to Dorcopsis (genus), but no clear consensus how to resolve this redundancy. I suggest that Elmidae and Plantdrew, who have each proposed methods, come to an agreement with each other on how to proceed. Sandstein 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcopsis

[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)

Grouping seems unnecessary. It's not a subfamily or a distinct genus, it's just a way of lumping two related genera together. Does not serve a purpose. Would delete and move the genus Dorcopsis from 'Dorcopsis (genus)' to Dorcopsis. Kazamzam (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it definitely needs some work. Maybe make it more formally a SIA. The species in the two genera are all called dorcopsis, so moving the genus page here would leave out the Dorcopsulus species. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect These two genera may form a clade, but so do any two taxa with a common ancestor. Unless they are being treated as a formally named clade and discussed as such, I don't see the basis for having an article for this grouping - which is honestly not exactly bulging with information, or even has the potential for any that would not be better placed at either genus. Suggest redirecting this to Dorcopsis (genus), and adding a note there that the Dorcopsulus species also have this common name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Elmidae, not every single clade needs an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Dorcopsis (genus) to base title. This is a content fork. Both Dorcopsulus species were first described as Dorcopsis; a section on taxonomic history with former species and a hatnote in the article on the genus are sufficient to address any ambiguity. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a sensible solution - as long as we end up with two genus articles and a note/hatnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last two relists. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we tend to do thins by consensus here, this decision really needs to be made by biologists or who ever understands the correct grouping/ranking. CT55555(talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The taxonomy is clear, this is a question of how to combine the different categorization systems of common name groupings and taxonomic groupings. WP mechanics only. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 25 February 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.