Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staurogyne

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. ✗plicit 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staurogyne

[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)

No source since its creation over a decade. Fade258 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this source which I believe is notable:

https://www.biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.296.1.1

It is an academic journal article that addresses the topic in detail. The source is reliable because it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Phytotaxa, and the authors are affiliated with universities in Brazil. You can download the PDF and read the article in its entirety. I plan to add the source to the page and expand the article. Bwmdjeff (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD isn't clean-up. Sources clearly exist. Staurogyne_bicolor, linking from the genus-article, is referenced. Staurogyne_elegans and Staurogyne_hirsuta also linking from this article, while not formally referenced, give a citation. Staurogyne_minarum has external links that might be helpful, while Staurogyne_sichuanica, also linked from this article, is referenced. None of the species articles are much more than stubs. A google search for Staurogyne produces an enormous number of hits for Staurogyne repens, which is apparently widely used in aquariums; so many hits it's hard to find anything else. But here is a reference to the genus in general [1] in efloras.org; here's the entry in theplantlist.org [2]; here's Kew's reference [3] it's rather hard to imagine that no "serious" textbooky references are available; there's certainly primary stuff too [4]. It'd be plain weird to delete this one with reference. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:DINC and WP:HEY. Skeptical the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE check. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Fade258: maybe read up on {{More citations needed}} and try that next time. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, Hi, Before I nominated this article for AFD there is no any refrences were present. All the refrences were added after the nomination for AFD. Don't worry wait for the closing of this discussion. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: then you could use {{Unreferenced}}. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, sure for next time. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2021 (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.