Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasmodium icipeensis

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icebob99 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium icipeensis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source to be found. Only two mentions out of non-mirror sites, and those were in an indiscriminate list of Plasmodium species that has some errors. Only 70 results on a google search Icebob99 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does appear to have been a real species description published under this name, though I don't have access to the paper: [1]. And while my first instinct on reading the specific epithet was to assume this was a hoax, it seems that ICIPE has used it before: [2]. But it's clear this has never been accepted or validated; the article itself mentions a different species in its text; and the article was started by an editor who was blocked for uncritically cut-and-pasting copyvio from whatever abstracts he could google up, so in all likelihood this was just an error in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paper (Dipeolu & Mutinga, 2011) in question describes this and 9 others as species novae. It fulfills the requirements for publication under the ICZN and is thus valid until challenged.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going to withdraw based on that paper. Google didn't pull it up in search results for some reason...? Thanks for bringing it here. Icebob99 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (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.