Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:48, 29 October 2022 editSilver seren (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,749 edits Reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:23, 29 October 2022 edit undoHey man im josh (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators344,127 edits Keep/oppose mergeNext edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:
	*'''Oppose merger''' merger of these articles will result in an excessively long and difficult to navigate tabular article if all the information is merged into ]. This also appears to be a misapplication of ] as these species level articles do not, in fact, only duplicate information already found in ].] (]) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)		*'''Oppose merger''' merger of these articles will result in an excessively long and difficult to navigate tabular article if all the information is merged into ]. This also appears to be a misapplication of ] as these species level articles do not, in fact, only duplicate information already found in ].] (]) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:The information is already at Bothriospilini, and it’s only 6000 bytes. How is that “excessively long and difficult to navigate”? Further, what information is missing from Bothriospilini? ] (]) 02:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)		*:The information is already at Bothriospilini, and it’s only 6000 bytes. How is that “excessively long and difficult to navigate”? Further, what information is missing from Bothriospilini? ] (]) 02:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Keep/Oppose merger''', the topics are individually notable. ] (]) 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:23, 29 October 2022

Bothriospila

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The following are proposed to be redirected to Bothriospilini, with categories left intact, per WP:CONTENTFORK as they duplicate the content of that article.

This would not prevent them from being split off again in the future, in line with WP:WHENSPLIT.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs)

Strong oppose - No consensus established for this sort of wholesale merge of taxonomic articles. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect. There is absolutely consensus for redirecting microstubs that duplicate content from other pages; this is literally no different than what we do regularly for countless cricket players and footballers. Zero information is being deleted. If editors can find sufficient independent, secondary SIGCOV for a standalone they can go ahead and remake the articles individually, as they should have done in the first place. And if editors really want to have their own walled garden of database entries to add wikidata to or whatever they can go to wikispecies, which was created for this purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect The topics do not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep Species are, by definition, notable subjects. And detailed information to meet GNG can be found for every single one. Hence why every AfD nomination of a recognized taxonomic species fails, because they are notable. Anyone arguing otherwise is expressing their own ignorance of the topic as a whole. Silver seren 01:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability is not relevant here, WP:PAGEDECIDE is - and there is no guideline saying that every species must have a standalone article (there isn’t even one that says that species are presumed notable) BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability is not relevant here

Then you shouldn't have brought this to AfD. Merge discussions should happen on the talk pages or, since you're wanting to merge so many, at the relevant Wikiprojects. An RfC could have also been made for a broader decision if that's what you're going for. But AfD is meant to determine notability of subjects. Silver seren 02:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose merger merger of these articles will result in an excessively long and difficult to navigate tabular article if all the information is merged into Bothriospilini. This also appears to be a misapplication of WP:CONTENTFORK as these species level articles do not, in fact, only duplicate information already found in Bothriospilini.Jahaza (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The information is already at Bothriospilini, and it’s only 6000 bytes. How is that “excessively long and difficult to navigate”? Further, what information is missing from Bothriospilini? BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep/Oppose merger, the topics are individually notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories: