Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important))@media print{.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:none!important))v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Biology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Biology|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Biology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Biology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Points of interest related to Biology on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Biology

[edit]

Cadborosaurus

[edit]

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

Canadian legendary creature / aquatic cryptid of dubious notability. Lots of primary sources used (newspapers from middle 20th century), and passing mentions in cryptid pseudoscience works. There is, however, a Scientific American article (blog?) tackling this https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/tetrapod-zoology/the-cadborosaurus-wars/ , in which a more serious scholar effectively says this is bad science. Still, it gives it a bit of notability. Can we find enough in other sources to warrant keeping this (WP:SIGCOV does require coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and so far I'd say we have just one?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Biology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, this book on Columbia University Press has a chapter regarding the cryptid. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources already in the article and the one mentioned above, Cadborosaurus appears in the academic secondary (tertiary?) sources Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology, p. 80 (has its own entry) and Seeungeheuer - Mythen, Fabeln und Fakten, p. 73-77. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that the latter is a translation of Monsters of the Sea. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Turkey, Apocynaceae

[edit]

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

Tagged uncited for years. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Should_these_uncited_articles_be_merged_or_deleted_or_cited_or_what? but no reply yet - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- family and geography are already covered by the article for Apocynaceae, no need to pull out a nation-specific list.

LizardJr8 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Turkey, Fagaceae

[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, frankly, and the same goes for the other two articles concerned. What with Flora of Turkey for the overview and Category:Flora of Turkey and its multifarious subdivions for details (including Category:Endemic flora of Turkey), this is quite superfluous - there is no benefit in an alphabetic listing that exactly mimics the category content. If retained, draftify as unacceptable for mainspace in current unsourced form. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Has been DABbed‎. which functions as a temporary solution as Roy Bateman noted. History is thereunder should the database issue be sufficiently resolved Star Mississippi 02:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diura chronus

[edit]

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

I don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Australia. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [1] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [2]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [3], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise I have re-drafted as disambiguation. I hope we agree that this page should not be deleted and some explanation would be useful (I first came here via genus Diura) - also note it has a Wikidata item. The databases etc. can always be reviewed in future. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments being made for two different Redirect target articles and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third, straightforward option - keep this page as a brief 'disambiguation' (as drafted): at least until the database conflict is cleared-up. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (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.

Biology proposed deletions

[edit]

Biopôle (via WP:PROD on 12 September 2023)