Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pappigerus

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 redirect to Puppigerus. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pappigerus[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)

One poor source. Couldn't find other sources WP:GNG Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do realize that the "notability" guideline does not apply to taxa, right? Wiki-girl, she's a Wiki-girl! (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GNG is probably the wrong angle here (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES etc.), but it looks like the issue might rather be that there appears to be no other mention of this genus anywhere - which is pretty unusual even for fossil genera. Edward Drinker Cope being who he was, this genus might well not have survived long beyond the first publication, and thus not constitute a recognized taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c - Re: Sun Creator) Actually, the notability guideline does apply to taxa, but the scientific report that coined the name is considered to represent sufficient reliable sourcing to satisfy that guideline. The problem here is that this appears to represent a persistent spelling error. See Puppigerus (Cope, 1870). The Pappigerus spelling does appear in several 19th century publications, including some attributing it to Cope, 1870, but I see no indication he confusingly named two genera Pappigerus and Puppigerus and editorial error/confusion is likely to blame for the Pappigerus spellings. So as a persistent/likely misspelling . . . .
Redirect to Puppigerus. Agricolae (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight the confusion, an editor has just added a citation to the Pappigerus article, citing a Cope 1882 publication. However, though the reference in this articleis indexed/OCRed as Pappigerus by both JSTOR and Google Books, a look at the original text shows it to be Puppigerus. Agricolae (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. In light of this, I concede a redirect is objectively the best approach. Wiki-girl, she's a Wiki-girl! (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best way to go here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a misspelling. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. --mikeu ^talk 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppigerus, as a misspelling. Nice detective work on the OCR misspelling, Agricolae! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppigerus, OCR misspelling. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 06:15, 20 October 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.