Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microtenthes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:01, 20 February 2023

Microtenthes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This taxon has a baffling lack of presence on the web. I'm getting a grand total of two hits [1][2], both books from the 60s. I suspect that this may have been a classification that did not gain traction and quietly disappeared from the records, without even being synonymized. Further excavations welcome. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found one additional mention in an extremely roundabout way. UC Berkeley in an ancient web directory hosts the files from a 1993 University of Texas CD called "THRINAXODON: DIGITAL ATLAS OF THE SKULL", included in which is a reprint from a 1961 paper in the Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. This paper in turn cites a 1956 paper for the statement suggested that in Ericiolacerta these foramina indicated either a mobile prolongation of the snout or highly developed sense organs such as a rhinarium or vibrissae. Brink (1957a, p. 86) extends this interpretation to Diademodon, as does Attridge (1956, p. 67) for the therocephalian Microtenthes. The hosted document is at https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/rowe/estes.html --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following that lead gets pretty hard though. That was not the only Attridge who did something of note in 1956 and nearly all hits for Attridge 1956 refer to the test pilot who managed to shoot down his own jet that year. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shot off an email to the UC Museum of Paleontology who hosts that archive to see if they may be some help in tracking down the Attridge paper. Will pass along anything if they get back to me. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the UC professor got back to me. It's a misspelling that worked it's way into a few things back in the day. Full email reply included here:

Tracking down data quality issues is never silly and pointless. Unfruitful and vexing, yes, but not silly and pointless. However, in this case, I can solve your mystery.

Microtenthes SHOULD be deleted, because it is a misspelling of Mirotenthes. Here's the Attridge paper where he first describes Mirotenthes. You can also see it featured here <https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0117-4#Fig10> as part of an open access article on "transitional fossils".

Best wishes, Pat Holroyd

Patricia A. Holroyd, Ph.D.

Senior Museum Scientist

Museum of Paleontology

University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720}}

Answers the questions about why we can't find sources at least. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent sleuthing! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have said redirect if the misspelling was common enough in sources, but it doesn't really look to be a viable redirect in that sense where it would really be a significant source of traffic. KoA (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I created Mirotenthes with the existing article text, so it's really just a matter of what to do with this page. KoA (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I think this is grounds to redirect to Mirotenthes and then build the article from there - there's a few dozen results on Google Scholars of varying degrees that can be cobbled together. Kazamzam (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::Just a note that I created [[Mirotenthes]] with the existing article text, so it's really just a matter of what to do with this page. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 19:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 :Nice work! I think this is grounds to '''redirect''' to Mirotenthes and then build the article from there - there's a few dozen results on Google Scholars of varying degrees that can be cobbled together. [[User:Kazamzam|Kazamzam]] ([[User talk:Kazamzam|talk]]) 12:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
-::Just as a suggestion, we don't actually have a Mirotenthes article. Mirotenthes digitipes, the sole species, is a red link from a number of articles though so we should have one. I'm in possession of the original Attridge paper, it was attached as a PDF to that email and can confirm the citation in this article. If everyone's in agreement, we can just move the page to Mirotenthes, leave the redirect, and add a redirect from Mirotenthes digitipes to Mirotenthes since common practice seems to be for monotypic genera to have the article on the genus and not the sole species. --[[User:127(point)0(point)0(point)1|(loopback)]] [[User_talk:127(point)0(point)0(point)1|ping]]/[[Special:Contributions/127(point)0(point)0(point)1|whereis]] 04:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)