Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apiphily


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Apiphily

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod by had been removed by Vaticidalprophet with some very strange reasoning, per WP:NAD and WP:GNG, not notable, WP:BEFORE gives some Dictionary Definitions but no books mentions or anything similar sufficient CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I spent some time trying to find some references for this. It seems like a plausible topic, but from my searching this word doesn't seem to exist. Google Scholar has one hit in a translated article from 1946. Everything else on the web are Wikipedia clones. It does not exist as a word in the OED. - SimonP (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a second (and very obscure) source here: . The snippet shows a parallelism with cantharophily (the pollination syndrome of beetles), which helped me make my comment in this discussion below. — Goszei (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is a hoax, a quick google search shows that the real name is Entomophily. Plus, there are no sources to back up this article.  Heart  (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, its parent page should list this page as one of its subspecies.  Heart  (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "apiphilous" is a nonce word, used here and there, and I suspect that the article creator inferred the noun from the adjective. The correct name, per loads of sources, is melittophily. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * with some very strange reasoning As I've mentioned before, many places, I'm perfectly happy to explain any tag removal I make. I had found some very old pre-internet hits and was looking into them further to try see what the case is, as prodding articles with potential pre-internet sources is a risky proposition. I was in the process of deciding those hits were dead ends and sending it to AfD (there are many, many articles where deletion is indicated but CSD/PROD is not, as I've noted quite recently). "There might be a there there, this needs a bit more time to be looked at before I send it off to AfD" is not, IMO, a "very strange" reasoning (we can certainly both think of stranger ones), and I'm getting a bit weary of your tendency to assume the worst in anything I do when I've repeatedly expressed a willingness to explain both my actions and what other people may be trying to get at. Vaticidalprophet 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. We seem to have a subsection on a page on this topic: Pollination syndrome (I am not an expert here, however). Uses a different name -- "melittophily" is well-attested in sources from what I can see. Considering the super-weak attestation of "apiphily", I not sure if it should be redirected to this section or deleted, but I lean heavily towards the latter because it because Books+Scholar combined return 2 obscure sources. — Goszei (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am suspicious of appearances of this term after 2011 because of the Wikipedia article. Use before 2011 is limited in google books to from 1946. It is not a dictionary word in the dictionaries I checked. I don't think this is a hoax, but I also don't think this is sufficient for a redirect. A redirect is plausible with a couple more sources using this in this fashion.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:16, 3 May 2021 (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.