Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillevinia straata

:{{la|Gillevinia straata}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillevinia_straata Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gillevinia straata}})

Most of this article is not about the proposed life form at all, but is redundant to Life on Mars. The rest is just a cynical attempt to give legitimacy to a crackpot theory by adorning it with a dignified pseudo-Linnaean name. Although the article has been made to look properly sourced to scholarly journals, on closer inspection it turns out that the reliable sources don't talk about this hypothesised organism and the ones that do are amateurish offerings in non peer reviewed publications. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

:Apologies about the inaccuracy, but the Gillevinia straata article is dedicated to the hypothetical life form found by Viking 1, not to Life on Mars. It was indeed converted to a redirect in the past, but I suggest a cleanup, nothing more. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Despite the claims of the creating editor, this completely fails a check for objective reliable sources actually discussing the organism. Wikipedia is not a place for wholly unsubstantiated fringe theories to be treated as legitimate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For reference, the article already existed as a redirect, and was restored along with having updated information. It is not my creation, the unreliable sources can be removed. It simply requires a massive rewrite to meet a neutral point of view. I wouldn't call it a "wholly unsubstantiated fringe theory", either. The subsection of people who accept it is growing, due to the fact that the methane in the Martian atmosphere shouldn't be there if there's no life. Something has to be supplying the methane or it will evaporate away. The two possibilities are methane-producing microbes and volcanoes. One problem: Mars is geologically dead. Until we find another physical process that explains this, it is a reasonable explanation that it is created by life. It's not an unsubstantiated fringe theory. It is, however, a little bit of a fringe theory. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect per nom. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete From the scientific perspective, the ONLY publication by the author (M. Crocco) was declined for publication (failed the peer review). It is quite fringe and borderline with pseudoscience. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. No results at all on NASA ADS, and the only reputable source I've been able to find pour scepticism on the claim. No media coverage either. The article gives the appearance of legitimacy by citing loads of decent but irrelevant sources and generally talking about another topic. Best to expunge this pseudoscientific claim from the encyclopaedia entirely. Modest Genius ^talk 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove the sources that reek of not being properly cited. This article CAN be salvaged, the question is whether it's worth doing so. I say keep but give it a rewrite. Take out the psuedoscientific parts. We can't deny the possibility that Viking 1 did find life, but we can take out the parts that are fringe. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to life on Mars#Viking lander biological experiments. The article itself is not a good idea per all those above, but it is a reasonable search term to redirect for readers who want to learn more about why it's not important. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to life on Mars#Viking lander biological experiments. The search term is a reasonable one, but the article is giving too much weight to a fringe belief. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect as the term does appear in a few books. But does not have a great deal of material written on it from reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect per StringTheory11. There's enough evidence to deem the term borderline "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, but it does not warrant a separate article when the topic is already covered in sufficient detail elsewhere. Praemonitus (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.