Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porifera incertae sedis


 * 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 redirect to Incertae sedis. ...Any interested editor may include details of Porifera incerta sedis into the target page. The history of the redirected page is intact. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Porifera incertae sedis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incertae sedis is an indication for uncertain placement at one more ranks in a taxonomic hierarchy. Porifera incertae sedis is not a taxon we can write an article about. It's entirely possible that there could be multiple taxa that are incertae sedis at the same rank(s), but which are obviously not at all closely related. Incertae sedis does not represent a coherent entity. Incertae sedis should be used as a placeholder in a taxobox; an article is impossible to write. Plantdrew (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I understand and agree with the nom's reasoning. Probably an article should be written on Placodictyum instead. But it is interesting to note that the class Porifera incertae sedis does occur in databases, such as  World Register of Marine Species and World Porifera database. In both of these databases, the class has the status of "accepted". Even with these entries, there does not appear to be multiple in-depth reliable sources about this class. Hence the class fails notability thresholds, and should be deleted. No prejudice to creating a redirect to Placodictyum, should it even get written. --Mark viking (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Incertae sedis. The article (microstub...) at this point is plain misleading. I think it would be most informative to make clear that this is a particular instantiation of a nomenclature convention by redirecting to that usage. Maybe put a mention of the use of "Porifera incertae sedis" as an accepted class into Incertae sedis? (that does strike me as unusual) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:33, 6 September 2016 (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.