Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranites

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. Cool3 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranites

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

Not notable, information lacking citation WilliamC24 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improved substantially during AFD period. NB the external link does not refer to the subject matter of the article, but to a website for Iranians or concerning Iran, though the article subject may formerly have owned the domain name. If kept it should be renamed to Iranaeic Fellowship of God. 71 Ghits most of which are repeating the same text; apparently no functioning website. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website was apparently functioning through 2006; here's what's at Archive.org: Last substantial version, Last (tiny) version -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking around on google, I'm failing to find evidence that they were ever notable. I agree that if an editor finds dead tree sources the article should be renamed as Peterkingiron recommends. Arguably, we should have here a disambiguation page distinguishing between a fossil genus of the cephalopod family Xenodiscidae (currently redlinked there as Iranites (fossil))[1], and the mineral Iranite (copper decalead hexachromate bis(orthosilicate) dihydroxid) (currently redlinked as Iranite)[2]. However, I'm not certain if Iranites is still the recognized taxonomy for the genus; this PDF copy of a journal paper suggests that for some genus, possibly a different one, Iranites is the former name and Sirtina is the currently recognized taxonomy. If it is the same genus, then the disambiguation page should say describe this as a former taxon, while if it is a different genus then we have another listing for the disambiguation page. This PDF copy of a journal article would be a good source for an article on the mineral. GRBerry 20:48, 8 September 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.