Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(?) Pinus


 * 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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(?) Pinus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apart from the article title being a curious misunderstanding of a notation indicating uncertainty of classification, it seems the source only describes Pinus yorkshirensis and no other species of Pinus, and describes no "(?) Pinus". As such this is either WP:OR, a hoax, or some clumsy attempt without meaningful content. cyclopia speak! 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * delete The name is obviously wrong for anything. Whenever a paleontologist describes a specimen for the first time they give it a species name. So I suspect this was just some kind of mistake. If there was any useful content it should just go to Pinus. (My earlier speedy delete nomination did not proceed). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Curiouser and curiouser. Paper doesn't even use this instance of placeholder nomenclature; clearly some misunderstanding. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with User:Graeme Bartlett, seems to have been created by mistake. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be based on some kind of misunderstanding of the cited source, not a namespace worth preserving, even as a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creator clearly misinterpreted something, because plant and animal species aren't named with question marks and even the paper cited as the source for it doesn't do so at all. I'm willing to WP:AGF here rather than labelling it an outright hoax per se, but I'm still not sure why the creator thought this was the article title or that we didn't already have an article about the actual species name covered in the cited source. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.