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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis neeladriensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Species sourced only sourced to predatory journals. Catalogue of Life just repeats the original source, doesn't evaluate scientific validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoL recognises the species because it is recognised by Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium (hosted at Kew Gardens). It's also recognised by Mycobank. Both are curated, although they may not check if the journal is predatory. These are the usual sources used for fungi species so should we second guess them?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're curated in that they verify that a name appeared in a publication somewhere. Not that the species is valid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. WP:NSPECIES says Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. (my bold). This species does not appear to have that with the predatory journal issue, so normally I would say delete. What Jts1882 mentions is what brings me just over the threshold though. Are there enough secondary sources checking this that aren't just indiscriminate databases? It seems that way based on Jts' description since societies, etc. usually have some checks in place even if they aren't doing a full-scale secondary verification. If it's more of a rubber stamp though that just repeats anything, then I'd be more likely to drift back towards delete. KoA (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. Both those databases have listed curators working for reputable academic institutions. I consider them reliable sources for fungi. One problem is that the taxonomic codes don't have provisions to exclude validly published names based on the type of journal, e.g. predatory or self-published (which have recently caused havoc for herpetologists).

What is the Wikipedia policy on predatory journals? Is it a ban or a use with caution warning. If the latter, then I think we have reliable sources to back up the species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that unreliable journals are unreliable and not to be relied on, like any other unreliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why the journal here wouldn't qualify for the WP:NSPECIES requirement (now officially a guideline btw). Thanks for posting to Wikiproject Fungi. Hopefully more folks familiar with those orgs can chime in, but I'm drifting more towards delete until secondary sources cite the paper uncritically. KoA (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is the primary source that is considered unreliable, but the secondary sources (curated databases) accept the taxa. How is rejecting such secondary sources not some sort of secondary research (i.e. overriding the conclusions of the secondary sources). —  Jts1882 | talk  20:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The honest question I have as an entomologist and not a fungi expert is if these databases are truly reliable secondary sources for this particular purpose. If it was merely a matter of those databases reflecting that the species description has been published in any journal, then that's not quite enough for us here. If there's even a bit of validation where an expert is checking the description/paper itself and saying "Yeah, it looks like a good description." I'd say that would be just enough. KoA (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried to do a little more digging today. There are a few papers citing the initial description of Mohabe et al. 2016, but they're almost all from the original lead author. Only these two are independent articles citing it.[1][2] The first source only says it looked at long list of sources to construct phyolgenetic trees including that one, but nothing else is said about the source or this species. In the second, this all is all that is said (about a different species Graphis plumieae, No further reference to this obviously rare species aside the original description from Guadeloupe could be found in the literature until recently when it was found in India (Mohabe et al. 2016) and in Portugal (Lepista & Aptroot 2016).

At the least, the paper is being cited uncritically by other independent peer-reviewed sources, so that can just eek this AfD over to keep for me without the question of databases, though I would have preferred to see the sources at least briefly mentioning Graphis neeladriensis for it to be a more solid keep. KoA (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In this case we need to balance our concern of predatory journals by examining policy at WP:EXPERTSPS as it relates to subject matter experts. In this case the journals in question have respected authors who are respected professionals in their field. While we may question the journal as a whole, I don't think there is a valid concern with these particular sources given who the authors are. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respected professionals do not publish in predatory journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's basically not quite true; inexperienced professionals certainly do, sometimes; and fortunately, even when they do, other professionals use their judgement on the papers' merits, not on the journal's evident demerits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • "inexperienced professionals", which are, by definition, not "respected professionals". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on comments above. Also, dismissing the primary source because of where it is published and ignoring reliable secondary/tertiary sources is probably some sort of original research. If expert curators have accepted the species, we should respect that unless there are sources challenging the original report.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They haven't. They're just repeating that a species name was used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 25 November 2024 (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.