Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis taxon

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 of the debate was Keep psch e mp | talk 02:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis taxon

There seems to be doubt as to whether this is a neologism, but a google search brings up only 400 hits, almost all of which (all but 4, according to one editor on the talk page) are Wikipedia pages, mirrors of this page, or articles using this page as a reference. Despite the number of editors who have touched it, it remains an uncited stub, and it doesn't seem notable or even credible. Delete. Kafziel 17:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be real. I've found some references to the term on University sites [1] [2]

[3]. I'll leave it up to editors who know something about science to determine whether this term is notable enough for Wikipedia, but apparently it's being discussed in college courses. --djrobgordon 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like google and other search engines bring up enough instances of "Elvis taxon" and "Elvis species" to make a point that this is a credible though arcane term for instances of convergent evolution. Maybe add "Elvis species" as a second direct to this page, as it seems at least as used if not maybe more used than "Elvis taxon". Ramdrake 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. "Elvis species" only has 75 hits. Granted, those 75 hits include a lot fewer Wikipedia mirrors, but is 75 hits on Google really enough to call a term "notable"? Aside from student tem papers and state college lecturers, are there references to the term being used by a notable number of people? Otherwise, it fails the very definition of Wikipedia:Notability: A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. This is obviously a very narrowly used phrase, and I don't see its "importance or impact" outside that community. Kafziel 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content but merge nto Lazarus taxon as suggested by other editors. As for failing WP:Notability, one might argue that there are vastly more fancruft articles than sciencecruft articles. Cheers! -- Miwa 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose merging this into Lazarus taxon.

I also agree with you about the scifi fancruft, and if you want to nominate something, I'll be the first to vote "delete". :) Kafziel 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this needs citations / references / expansion before this is resolved. "Consensus" points to a keep, but this article still needs some help from an expert. Flag as such? -- Miwa 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is used in a variety of articles in Wikipedia and a Yahoo search shows that many university professors use the term in their class notes online so if they're teaching it I think it's valid. Also, merging with Lazarus taxon would be an incorrect course of action since the two concepts are not related. One involves a species being rediscovered the other involves a species that acts the same as an extinct one. - DNewhall
Comment. It seems people aren't really getting the whole "notability" thing. The notability guidelines specifically say, in the very first sentence, that a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency. So even though professors in the very scientific states of Missouri and Kentucky use it, it still isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Kafziel 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the bit where it says ..., or should be because of its particular importance or impact. :-) — Timwi 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know, seeing as there are a lot of articles that are left to stay in WP that are likely to be far more obscure than this term. Seeing as it seems used as a legitimate term in at least two universities, is taught as part of a curriculum (as both teacher and student notes attest to), I'd leave it in. And if I happened to come across the term and not know what it is, I'd be more inclined to look it up than, say " Naughty Karate" (people, this is just an example, I DO NOT want to start a flam war; if anybody feels an apology is needed, here it is in advance) Ramdrake 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term does get used and is referenced from other articles.

Watson Ladd 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, at least the concept is valid and notable (you might want to call it something other than Elvis taxon/species, but that's irrelevant). If other scientists use other terms for the same thing, those terms should be added to this article. — Timwi 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as has been established, not a neologism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search using my local college library periodical database pulled up over 50 printed references to "Elvis taxonomy" ALKIVAR™ 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep". The term isn't nearly as esoteric as some of the stubs we have floating around. If you really want to include it in the spring cleaning, merge it into the convergent evolution article.
Keep as a separate article. The concept is distinct from Lazarus taxon. Durova 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioning Google again, Elvis taxa gets about 88,100 results, many from universities, an it's a cool term =) 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Joaobonzao
Keep Have heard this elsewhere, is real--and cool! --68.173.39.59 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hopefully with a few cited instances in the literature? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you goddamn AFD dorkasses. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about this area to say if it's a real term or not, but I think people should realise there is more to the world than just what google has indexed! MyNameIsClare talk 13:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Love the comment--Keep, you goddamn AFD dorkasses--I vote *Keep too. Too colorful a term to deny; previous google hits be damned. If it doesn't stand on its own now, it will in a few years!Doovinator 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I was reading about the newly rediscovered laotian rock rat, and thanks to this article and the related ones, I now know the difference between the multiple forms of discovery. Please keep articles like this, they're rather valuable.

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.