Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oocystales

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. While the vast majority of AFD debates are about notability, it seems this is the rre case where verification is the problem.No prejudice against recreation if better authoritative sources are found. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oocystales

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources; appears to have been a database error at this point. Eau (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There seems to be a genus Oocystis, and this and this list a number of genera in the order. I'm unclear on what the problem is (although the Algaebase entry doesn't inspire confidence).--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is probably molecular genetics coupled with a lack of competent taxonomists, or maybe even any taxonomists when it comes to algal orders; maybe the name was misued, reapplied, brought into existence when it did not really. Exist. Eau (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the ITIS database does list this order, and includes Oocystaceae as the only family, but I don't trust ITIS as authoritative. A page for this taxon was also created on Wikispecies, with the sole member Eremosphaeraceae, which AlgaeBase currently lists in the Chlorellales. WoRMS lists the Oocystales, and although it says the source is "not documented", it cites AlgaeBase from 2010. This suggests that there was such an entry in AlgaeBase at one point, but that it has since been removed, for whatever reason. The other top returns I find are the usual mirror sites, or Wikipedia itself. If we can find out with some certainty what this name was replaced with on AlgaeBase, then this might be better retained as a redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a change in taxonomy, AlgaeBase keeps the taxon and gives the synonym for the unaccepted taxon. As they did not do this with Oocystales, I would feel safer deleting the article until a citation is found. Eau (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oocystis is said to be in the Chlorellales; the Algaebase genus page concurs. EOL concurs, but they probably got their information from the same source. This page puts it in the Chlorococcales; iiuc Chlorellales is a segregate of that. I agree with Eau that deleting it is at this point safest, because it's not clear where it should be redirected (other than perhaps Oocystaceae.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only lead I have is a bit I found using Google Books: "... the Oocystales or Chlorellales; both Eremosphaera and Oocystis satisfy this criterion." I can't view the full text of the original, but it seems to distinguish between the two orders, and does indicate that Oocystales does occur in the literature. The quote comes from a volume of Phycological Studies, published by the University of Texas at Austin in 1966 (volumes 6-10). I don't know whether the two orders of concern are taxonomic synonyms, so I can't recommend a particular redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on discussion so far.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect that this is synonymous with what is now being called Chlorellales, based in part on that Phycological Studies reference, but I can't find anything to serve as a legitimate citation. I'm used to historical plant taxonomy being ugly, but this algal stuff is especially obtuse. I would guess that there was some time in between the divvying-up of Chlorococcales and the formal establishment of Chlorellales, and that Oocystales may have been proposed in that interim. But that's really just speculation at this point. It doesn't help that there's clearly been a lot of other shuffling around in the area; if we accept AlgaeBase as authoritative, Eremosphaeraceae is still extant but no longer includes Eremosphaera (which means we've got some bad data in our articles). As an aside, I'm not sure how Chlorellales got a 1985 authority date; it's in use well before that ... which suggests it may have been adopted in a different sense than prior uses, which ... you know what, notability may be forever, but if someone is going to care enough about 30+ year old mostly-deprecated algae taxonomy to go find the journals and salvage this entry, it's going to have to be someone other than me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence that this taxon is/was legit seems to be found here [1]; "... the Oocystales or Chlorellales; both Eremosphaera and Oocystis satisfy this criterion. Of greater controversy than their ordinal position, however, is the family to which these algae should belong..." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An order in the Chlorophyta has a single citation from the 60s, is not mentioned in a single algae text book from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s, and Wikipedia should perpetuate this order through cyberspace? Why? Eau (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.