Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinus washoensis


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinus washoensis

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

This "species" has been almost universally identified as a subspecies of P. Ponderosa, with recent Nuclear and Plastid DNA studies and analysis from Willyard confirming this. The article has many errors in how it is written. It should be noted that most of the references used in the article label the species as Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, rather than just Pinus Washoensis. I would support renaming the article to Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, however, is not accurate to label the article as Pinus Washoensis when multiple reputable sources like Willyard and the USDA/USFS label it otherwise. I would also be open to merging the article and adding more information to the Pinus Ponderosa page under the specific section for Var. Washoensis. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox  03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding a few references that are relevant:


 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion.  See WP:MERGE if that was your intent instead.  The article was just created yesterday, so it's not like you're unable to discuss this with the article creator.  RecycledPixels (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, AfD is utterly the wrong place to be starting a discussion about changing the name of this article or merging its contents. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think I read somewhere that it's under the purview of the individual user weather or not a subspecies gets an article. Americanfreedom (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and wordsmith with additional sources to reflect its current status as a likely subspecies.-- Kev min  § 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete the title. The article can be moved to a title for a subspecies or a variety, or could be redirected to Pinus ponderosa, with the subspecies/variety being discussed there. Ultimately, Pinus washoensis should be a redirect, but there are different options for the target. Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Rewrite as a subspecies article. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a subspecies, its a variety. In fact, the folks working on plant taxonomy are heading in the direction of renaming all plant subspecies as varieties. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Still, it's a keep !vote with a rewrite that would necessitate a move. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It generally requires more than a couple of phylogenetic studies for names to be changed holus bolus. When the botanists are more aligned in their agreements, then redirects will be needed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep a distinctive form that isn't a species does not automatically qualify for a page unless notable. This one appears to have enough sources to render page viable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The Washoe Pine seems notable and even if it was decided not to give it its own article, a redirect is needed. The question then becomes whether to treat it as a species (OD, FNA), subspecies (Gymnosperm database), variety (conifer database via CoL, Willyard et al, 2021) or synonym (WFO following WCSP, POWO following Farjon 2001). In A Handbook of the World's Conifers (2010), Farjon referred to the "the spurious taxon P. washoensis" (p739). While the newer molecular studies now favour variety, we should probably treat it as a population or stand of Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa following POWO, WFO and Farjon rather than the primary sources. But that is a discussion for the talk page. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:26, 24 June 2023 (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.