Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudolina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseudolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probable hoax. PubMed returns no results for "Pseudolina". Google returns few results, none about an herb. Almost wanted to speedy, but wanted to be completely sure. Evil saltine (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if PubMed is what I think it is, I can't imagine this being missed. Moreover, Google returns only one hit for Pseudolina crescentum — and it's this article. I would guess that it's impossible (barring a complete crash by Google) for this search to return no mentions in reliable sources if it's a real species. Even Cletocamptus helobius, a tiny obscure crustacean, gets 9,500 hits. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing on Google. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but the "Pseudo" part of the name strikes my gut instinct that it's probably a hoax. If the plant has been used since "the 13th Century" as the article purports, one has to think someone would have mentioned it somewhere on the Internet. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:51, 28 October 2009 (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.