Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovermes

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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovermes[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)

It appears that this taxon is in use by the author alone - I can find exactly two cites, the work referenced in the article and this book. Now we don't usually have any issues with newly coined taxa at lower levels, given that they are validly published, but I don't believe that applies to these top-level unranked clades, which are more in the nature of a broad hypothesis than a taxonomic finding. I would suggest that some uptake beyond the originator would be required before we can have an article (even a sub-stub) on this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm inclined to agree. At this level, we need some kind of secondary or tertiary sourcing, or some WP:IS alternate source that confirms the thesis laid out in the only given source. UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any articles citing the source paper that use the term, and the external link appears to be the first author's PhD dissertation, so the two sources aren't really independent. Maybe an article would be appropriate when/if this hypothetical clade is more widely accepted and written on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is a taxon that would need independent sourcing to find out whether the new grouping is valid or WP:DUE in that field. KoA (talk) 14:42, 19 July 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.