Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anisopoda

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The result was Keep/withdrawn. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisopoda[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)

Article has lacked any citations for its 12 years of history. Doing some very cursory research shows that the only reputable source (WoRMS) counts the genus as a synonym of Tanaidacea and not its own genus (See this link). Because of these two things, the article should most likely be deleted as it does not meet notability or informative standards, and over twelve years has not been improved enough or at all. Unless someone were to save the article y finding and incorporating some sources that hold this genus as its own, I would advocate for deletion. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the ...??? Keep. Flawed nomination. Article is about the plant genus Anisopoda, not the crustacean order Anisopoda. WoRMS is not a good source for land plants (it is not intended to be). Taxonbar shows that POWO, Tropicos, The Plant List and IPNI have records for the plant genus (these databases are intended to be good sources for plants). Even if the article were about the crustacean order, it could be turned into a redirect rather than deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel like I need a facepalm emoticon on here for this one. Sorry for the flawed nom, got my facts all twisted up. I realized too late that, doh, I was looking at the wrong taxon. Sorry once again and thanks for the speedy catch. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 00:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the man said; once you realize this is a plant, sources are easy to come by. Added PWO listing ref, and original (1890) description ref. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my area of expertise. Should there be a hatnote to Tanaidacea? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I would say not. We don't need to account for every obscure scientific name that has long been disused. The most recent usage for the crustacean order I've been able to find is from 1894. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a well-sourced stub article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Error in nomination and the article is now sourced. Although more detailed sources would have been preferred, the sourcing is acceptable for the article. Hzh (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Mistakes happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2019 (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.