Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baylisascaris shroederi


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Baylisascaris shroederi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:TNT. This seems to be a hoax or breaching experiment. The creator's only Wikipedia contributions are the first two edits to this article. It is largely a copy of Baylisascaris procyonis with some words and numbers changed (but retaining sources that only mention B. procyonis).

For example: "In North America, B. procyonis infection rates in raccoons are very high, being found in around 70% of adult raccoons and 90% of juvenile raccoons."

"In central China, B. shroederi infection rates in giant pandas are very high, being found in around 95% of adult giant pandas and 90% of juvenile pandas."

I find it difficult to believe that stems from incompetence. It looks like the editor was actively trying to spread misinformation via Wikipedia.

There are two references (only cited in the lede), about Baylisascaris schroederi (correctly spelled with a 'c') as a parasite of giant pandas. This is a real parasite (if spelled properly) and a short article could be written with those sources. However, given the amount of misinformation in the initial edit, I don't think the article's history is worth preserving. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ...nice catch (are you a roundworm man or how did you notice this?) The references are certainly all ghosted from the B. procyonis article. Given the misspelling of the name in the article title and the likely bad faith content, I guess this ought to be deleted, and a stub/article for B. schroederi can be created under the correct name.
 * NB, that taxon is annoyingly absent from any taxonomic database I checked, although clearly existant -> ? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 18 September 2022 (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.