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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudo system[edit]

Kudo system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article is simply a list of taxa in a classification scheme used by RR Kudo in one edition of his Protozoology text (the 4th ed. of 1954, which happens to be widely available on the internet). There's no way to expand this list into a proper article, because Kudo's classification was not particularly unusual in its time, and has not been widely discussed as a system. While Kudo was an important and well-regarded protozoologist, there is nothing particularly notable about the taxonomy he used to organize the contents of his book. The title of the article suggests that this scheme was known as "the Kudo System". However, I'm unaware of any published source that uses that phrase (searches in Google Scholar and Google Books turn up nothing relevant). In any case, the proper place for an obsolete taxonomic system is WikiSpecies. Deuterostome (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nom states the case well. Admittedly "superseded taxnomic classification system" is a somewhat arcane branch of knowledge, and I don't believe we have specific guidelines re inclusion... but unless such a system has had a substantial impact and coverage during its time of relevance, I don't see a good reason for having an article on it.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 September 2016 (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.