Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko's Phylogeny Archive

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko's Phylogeny Archive[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)

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines. In addition to not being notable, subject is a website that appears to have once been upkept but is no longer reliably updated and as such is not reliable. Wikipedia is not an index of every amateur website created; this has no notability and no references other than the website that is the subject of the article. Paisarepa (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, the website’s author ‘points out that the site is a private project, is not peer-reviewed, and should not be used as a scientific reference’ so there is no reason for it to have an article here. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are mentions of this site in Google Books. Apparently the site, despite being run by a private individual, has been a pioneer in the field having started in 2001. So atleast it should merit some investigation. --Pudeo (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found six books with the search, and while one of them is published by Routledge, four of them are Wikipedia clones and one was published in the 1980s. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apparently, the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the United States National Library of Medicine considers this a "high-quality" resource suitable for inclusion in their LinkOut program. [[1]]. It's a niche article to be sure, but it does have signs of notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage in secondary sources about the site, and it is not referenced in peer reviewed papers on taxonomy. It seems to be "random dudes personal phylogeny opinions"--Kev min § 16:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being included in a list of links is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As already stated, there do not appear to be any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 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.