Talk:Apodinium floodi

Notability
I tend to mark organisms as notable once I can confirm it exists. As far as I can tell the only sign we have that this exists is the one 1990 paper? There seems to have been no other work done on this organism and even that paper seems to have limited citations by other work (according to Gogole Scholar just 3). Even by my low bar for this kind of notability I am not at all sure this is notable - I'd have expected coverage by other reference sources by now if nothing else. Pinging previous editors involved in this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And now pinging who seems to have reviewed about the same time I was typing my message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - While reviewing for the New Pages Patrol I confirmed that the creature was named in the peer-reviewed scientific journal from 1990 and then assumed that it is so obscure that no other scientist has ever taken an interest. I figured this was enough for notability in the animal kingdom, but will admit that this is not my area of expertise. It should  be enough to qualify for the New Pages Patrol process but I have no objections if anyone demands more proof of notability. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * .For organisms I assume notable if there is a source. The pages get tagged for projects and that attracts editors who know a lot more about this than me. If something already exists under another name that will be sorted out Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, if this weren't a species, I would have declined it. For a species article, however, it was enough, and it passed the sniff test, hoax-wise to me. I agree it needs more sources but the bar for species articles, it seems, is set pretty low. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)