Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberellomorpha

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 merge‎ to Kimberella. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberellomorpha

[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)

Solza may just be a taphonomic variation of Kimberella, all others are from McMenamin and therefore are likely unfounded. Therefore, it’s a monotypic taxon. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kimberella, seems the grouping itself is accepted by some of researchers as looking on Google Scholar, but it is mostly monotypic. As I see it is not known when this grouping was established, probably need information for that. In the talk page article creator commented that they used ChatGPT to write the article, and current status is terrible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in full support of a merge. It seems to be an invention purely supported by McMenamin. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what it is not an McMenamin taxon,look it up although McMenamin does mention the order rarely , but McMenamin did not describe this order. 2010.1126/science.1206375 DOI 10.1126/science.1206375 Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you even properly link to the paper?[1] You are definitely new to editing and should learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, seeing from Scholar, this paper appears to be the earliest mention of "Kimberellomorpha", but there is no discussion of what kind of taxonomic group it is, so this seems to be just a loose grouping like "roachoid" without clear scientific classification. So simply mentioning Kimberella article will suffice for this. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no reason for Wikipedia to support this dubious bit of taxonomy. As for ChatGPT's editing and writing abilities, don't throw away your fountain pens any time soon, editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t use ChatGPT. Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unneeded "1." shown in synonyms in that article makes it the doubt that is copied from something outputted by ChatGPT. In any case, this article has a number of problems, including unnecessary spaces, spaces that aren't where they should be, and incorrect use of bold and italics. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“ChatGPT says the next subdivision is Kimberellida” Hmm, it sure sounds like you’re at least using ChatGPT to help write some of the article… IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment The idea of including this taxon was already rejected in Kimberella by Donald Albury and IC1101-Capinatator, who called it a "dubious taxon". And an earlier conclusion was that work by MAS McMenamin had to be verified by secondary references, before inclusion in Wikipedia. However this term Kimberallmorph/s/a seems to have been used by others, but not as a properly defined taxon. I would suggest that we just have the term as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2024 (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.