Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae
- 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Database that does not seem to pass notability guidelines. Potentially a WP:COI as the editor who created the page is an author of 4 out of the 5 used sources. Mbdfar (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a conflict of interest. Athel cb (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – fails notability guidelines, I couldn't find any sources except some mentions. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 08:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Websites, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The online database IndExs is very relevant for herbaria and the botany/ mycology community. Since more than 20 year it is well-known and treated as singular reference database for the system of exsiccatae as explained under exsiccata.
- Here are some of the sources and citations worldwide:
- https://journals.abcjournal.aosis.co.za/index.php/abc/article/download/86/86
- https://www.museum-joanneum.at/naturkundemuseum/forschung/botanik-mykologie/links/sammlungen
- https://www.cjbg.ch/collections/bibliotheque/liens-utiles
- https://www.rasl.ru/e_resours/Gerbary_bin/internet_adresa.htm
- https://www.bgbm.org/de/web-ressourcen-botanik/andere-datenbanken-und-weitere-ressourcen-zur-taxonomie-und-systematik
- and in special the notes in:
- https://www.mycoportal.org/portal/collections/exsiccati/index.php?ometid=547&specimenonly=1&imagesonly=0&collid=0&sortBy=0
- "Notes: This exsiccatae is not listed on http://indexs.botanischestaatssammlung.de"
- We see no conflict of interest and will improve the text.
- In some way we use the text under MycoBank as template. The position of the Botanische Staatssammlung is similar as that of Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute for MycoBank. TriebelD (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete. I count no rational while searching for and found "Did you mean: "IndEx - Index of Exsiccatae"[1] -wikipedia". Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ ""IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae" -wikipedia - Google Search". www.google.com.
- Keep. I think the references cited above are enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Citations (some listed above, and more not listed that will soon be added) show that article meets GNG. Esculenta (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. In my current pursuit of herbarium information as a biologist, I found the contents of this page both well sourced and useful as a standalone article. The information here should at very least be merged into the Exsiccata page if a decision is made to delete it. Theodoreesquires (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful for those trying to locate exsiccatae. And not sure why an expert in the field shouldn't be able to reference their own journal articles without being accused of COI! MeegsC (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The version of the article I nominated was heavy on WP:SELFCITE. As stated at WP:COI, I am not judging the editor on their opinions, integrity, or good faith. However, the editor's use of "we" in this thread and on their talk page does seem to indicate representation of a larger group, perhaps one that is affiliated with the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the homepage of the editor in question states that IndExs is/was a project of theirs. It does seem to be an undisclosed COI. However, if the community deems the article to be in an acceptable, neutral state, I will not further thie issue. Mbdfar (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but my earlier comment referred to the version that existed then (with 5 references, of which 4 were to publications of the editor who created the article). There have been many edits since. The reference list as it is now is no longer a clear example of self-promotion. Athel cb (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. . Please
- I hope that after the major improvements of the last days all editors agree now to keep the article as a standalone article. I have no COI. I am a senior researcher (retired) without commercial interest and working since the start of the project (now on a voluntary basis) for scientific curation of the freely and open accessible database IndExs. I therefore ask the Wikipedia administrators/ editors to remove the "proposed for deletion banner". TriebelD (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- The version of the article I nominated was heavy on WP:SELFCITE. As stated at WP:COI, I am not judging the editor on their opinions, integrity, or good faith. However, the editor's use of "we" in this thread and on their talk page does seem to indicate representation of a larger group, perhaps one that is affiliated with the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.