Talk:Ulmus minor subsp. canescens

Proposed deletion
The article was proposed for deletion, on the grounds that the species was not recognized by Richens, R. H. (1983) Elm. However, it is recognized by The Plant List, based on WCSP (in review), a 2012 source, so I think that deletion is not at present justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The deletion proposal was prompted by the current Flora of Israel Online by Prof. Avinoam Danim, which treats the tree as U. minor. Whilst I'm unaware of any DNA profiling of U. canescens, the practice has vindicated Richens' taxonomy elsewhere.Ptelea (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in favour of a cautious approach to article creation and deletion in the case of species. Not only because of WP:PSTS but also to ensure there is genuine consensus, we should be wary of single source proposals. The article should certainly say that some reliable sources treat U. canescens as U. minor, whereas others currently don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)