Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunapee golden trout

Sunapee golden trout

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

somthing ain't right here. It is claimed that this is a distinct subspecies of Arctic Char, but ther is no scientific evidence that this fish even exists. One of the external links, a fishing website, uses the term "Sunapee trout". That's it. I don't think that is sufficient evidence for us to have an article claiming this is a genuinely separate species. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this: [1] which says that the existence of this fish a separate and distinct species is not clear, and that there is basically one researcher who at first said no then later changed his mind and said they probably were. That does not appear to constitute a scientific consensus on the issue at all, rather it suggests that there is no agreement. The page also states that the information is preliminary and has not been properly reviewed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like quite a mess here. Catalog of Fishes appears to be inconsistent; I can't link directly to their species records, but go here and search for "Salvelinus alpinus", and look at the entries for aureolus and oquassa. Aureolus was described from Sunapee Lake; that's our "Sunapee golden trout". Catalog of Fishes list aureolus as freshwater dwelling from the NE US and treats it as a synonym of Salvelinus alpinus. However, with oquassa, Catalog of Fishes lists it as being from marine and freshwater habitats in New England and Southern Canada, and treats it as a valid subspecies, Salvelinus alpinus oquassa. Fishbase doesn't mention S. a. oquasa, but has both Salvelinus aureolus and Salmo oquassa as synonyms of Salvelinus alpinus alpinus (see here). Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether or not the Sunapee Trout is or was a distinct species is irrelevant here. Is the topic notable or not? This [2] suggests the topic is notable as the references in this PDF are clearly RS. I am sure I could find many more. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant? Surely, it's the very heart of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES can be interpreted in the negative--i.e. if not a species, then its inherently not-notable. As a topic: Sunapee Golden Trout or Salvelinus aureolus has sufficient coverage in RS to pass our notability standard. There are many "former" species, subspecies that are no longer valid, yet we have articles on them because there is sufficient RS to support notability of the topic. Notability is about coverage in RS, not accuracy of content in the article.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That and the actual coverage that uses the exact wording "Sunapee golden trout" is nearly non existent. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article title issue, not a notability issue. The article could just as easily be entitled Sunapee trout (currently a redirect) or ''Salvelinus aureolus'' and there's sufficient RS to support those titles. [3], [4], [5] --Mike Cline (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes of course, I see. Yes, we have categories for a wide range of things which are merely claimed or once thought to exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this is a notability issue. Rather it's a taxonomy issue which should be discussed in-text. Either on Salvelinus alpinus itself (which is already the case) and/or in this separate article on the subspecies. I prefer separation because the populations treated as S. a. oquassa are all geographically isolated from S. alpinus with quite a lot of available sources (Google Books for instance) that treat them as distinct (either distinct populations, subspecies, or species) with explicit common names.

Sunapee trout as discussed here refers to three distinct populations known separately as Sunapee trout (S. aureolus), blueback (S. oquassa), and Quebec red trout (S. marstoni), all of which were originally described as separate species. Per USGS, Sunapee trout are from Lake Sunapee, Averill Pong, Big Dan Pond, and Floods Pond (they are extinct in the former 3, and now only survive in Floods Pond); bluebacks are from northwestern Maine; and Quebec red trouts are from southern Quebec.

Per S.U. Qadri (1974), P.J. Rombough et al. (1978), and Irv Kornfield et al. (1980), all three (S. aureolus, S. oquassa, and S. marstoni) are identical and should be treated as separate relict land-locked populations of the same subspecies of S. alpinus, as S. alpinus oquassa.

This is the treatment this article follows, and is also the one most widely accepted among current taxonomists, AFAIK, thus the one we should follow per WP:DUE. I haven't seen any recent papers that explicitly synonymizes S. alpinus oquassa with S. alpinus alpinus, aside from databases.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arctic char. I think this would make the whole topic more clear to readers.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the right solution as the topic of Sunapee trout is notable in its own right regardless of its relationship to Arctic char. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, as a non-expert, it would be easier to understand them if they were discussed in the context of their entire species. No information would need to be removed in the merge. Also something being notable does not require WP to have a distinct article on it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subspecies is genetically distinct and landlocked with specialized adaptations that means the generalized description in Arctic char do not apply. Distinct enough to warrant a separate article. I don't understand the premise of this deletion even. It is not a separate species. It's a subspecies, and it does exist.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the information on its unique adaptations could and should be included in the combined article, if that's the way we want to go.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]