Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of refugia

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 keep‎. There's consensus for this to be kept. Elmidae, if you think this should be moved, it should either be boldly done or a formal requested move be opened. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of refugia

[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)

Tagged as an essay for 10+ years. Effectively an orphan, listed as a see also in one article (it was also an easter egg link in another, I fixed that...). Categorized in broad category (Ice ages). WP:GNG of this is unclear. Perhaps parts of it could be merged to Refugium (population biology), which seems to be what refugia (otherwise, a disambig) means here. Why this exists as a separate article from that one is beyond me, except perhaps this is too poor to merge? But I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be sure if this is useful to merge or not. But as a stand alone article it makes little sense to keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good, clear, cited overview (heck, even the lead is cited), followed by a perfectly sensible list of refugia as defined in population biology, with (gasp) every example actually cited (now that would transform Wikipedia's 100,000 list articles if it caught on as a meme habit...). There's nothing wrong with this list article at all; and merging it with the parent article would clutter it up and grossly unbalance it, almost doubling its length and dilute its argument which presents what a refugium is: the list correctly presents specific instances. So, I'd oppose any merge, it's a definite Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Examples of ice age refugia. Refugium (population biology) is a very broad term, while this article is concerned with only one particular type. Other than that, I agree that this is a useful overview with great sourcing, and that it should be kept. And what in particular is "poor" about the writing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the move suggested makes sense. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2025 (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.