Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choilodon

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Choilodon}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Choilodon}})

First, the 1888 source by Filhol is really the only source on the internet that treats the genus Choilodon as "valid" (mammal indexes are not reliable sources because they don't closely diagnose genera/species). I have not seen any 21st or 20th century article from Europe that would suggest the validity of the genus (otherwise, I would be able to see the genus name in the 1926 source "üBER DIE TRAGULIDÆ UND IHRE BEZIEHUNGEN ZU DEN üBRIGEN ARTIODACTYLA," which reviewed some true tragulids (Tragulus, Dorcatherium), names that are now synonyms of true tragulids (Cryptomeryx is now a synonym of Iberomeryx), and taxon names that are now their own family (Lophiomeryx is now its own family, the Lophiomerycidae). [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1463-6395.1926.tb00924.x] If the taxon was still valid, I would definitely be able to refer to any dozens of articles that extensively studied the Paleogene ruminants, which does not seem to be the case here.

Second, according to the 1891 source "Geological Magazine, Volume 3; Volume 8; Volume 28," edited by Henry Woodward, Frederick F. H. Hatch stated instances of Filhol's "carelessness" that he considered embarrassing based on prehistoric taxonomy. In addition to other instances of taxonomic errors by Filhol, Hatch argued, "It may also be mentioned that in 1888 Dr. Filhol described a Mammal from Sansan under the name of Choilodon elegans, although no such specific or generic name occurs in the present work." [https://books.google.com/books?id=hIcPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=choilodon&source=bl&ots=SiZOF5Q4jm&sig=ACfU3U2MwV0Yj5fszI8DPS88IfZZfkaGIw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2q_OpucD_AhUTKn0KHaP4D4Q4RhDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=choilodon&f=false] While he doesn't explicitly state that the genus name in question is inherently invalid, there's very few if any sources that argues for the validity of the genus name, even on Filhol's part. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep but change wording to something like: Choilodon' is an obsolete taxon and a synonym for ... Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

::If it's a synonym, it gets redirected, not kept as a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

::That seems to be the right solution. Athel cb (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Whether it's valid or not, it shouldn't be deleted if it's a validly published name, but either redirected to whatever it might be synonymous with or stated if it's a nomen dubium. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting as it sounds as if there is support for turning this page into a Redirect but we need a target article specified. Can we call on any of our taxonomy experts here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Reluctantly delete. In principle, I'd like to redirect, but I haven't been able to find any sources that treat Choilodon as a synonym of another genus, and I don't think redirecting to Tragulidae would be an improvement. The article creator is responsible for the massive disambiguation page C. elegans (disambiguation), and created many articles for obscure species names that can be abbreviated as C. elegans and many of them have turned out to be regarded as synonyms. I did a Google search for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22elegans+Filhol%22 elegans+Filhol] which reveals that Filhol described several species with the epithet "elegans" (some of which were also ungulates), but no others were described in 1888. I was hoping to find that one of Filhol's other ungulate "elegans" might be a synonym of Choilodon elegans with a misattributed date (for either Choilodon elegans or another species), but that doesn't appear to be the case. The original description of Choilodon elegans can be seen [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/99770#page/250/mode/1up here] (it starts on the previous page), and apparently was published in 1888. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, I think, per Plantdrew. The nom's summary of the situation seems to be accurate (based on my lay understanding and limited research). If we could say that in text we could have a reasonable case for redirecting it to some superordinate article that could briefly mention Choilodon and explain the problem. But we can't do that without violating WP:NOR, because there aren't actually any sources that say it; it's just implied. Ultimately, it seems to be the case that we can't say anything accurate about this putative taxon. And in that case it's better to say nothing at all. -- Visviva (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delete if the genus name no longer exists and likely was never valid, and there's not even anywhere to redirect to, it's hard to see what else we should do here.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.