Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necrofauna

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 redirect‎ to De-extinction. If you disagree with the Redirect target article, please start a discussion the Redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Necrofauna

[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)

This page is horribly outdated and has not been updated since 2017 outside of bot edits. It still treats de-extinction as a far future hypothetical event when there have been numerous successful de-extinctions since then such as the Judean date palm, tsori, aurochs, Montreal melon, and Floreana giant tortoise. The term is also not widely used outside of one book, and everything discussed on the page is mentioned on or can be mentioned on the main de-extinction page. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest keep because the subject is notable, but since the article at De-extinction basically covers the same ground and is much better, I'd have no objection to converting Necrofauna to a redirect to De-extinction. We wouldn't really even need necrofauna were it not for the book. Elemimele (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The necrofauna page is also HORRBILY outdated, as it refers to de-extinction as a far future hypothetical. That would be like if pages about AI or NFTs still treated them as far future hypothetical technologies, which is obviously not the case in 2025 for de-extinction, AI, and crypto. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since citation 8 is (embarassingly) the only one of the 8 sources that even mentions the term (and then in passing), I don't see the need for even a redirect. Reywas92^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasoning. "Necrofauna" is not a widely accepted nor recognised term while de-extinction is. Britannica and Oxford English have entries for de-extinction, but not necrofauna. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion. No problem with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to De-extinction. As a published author of a book on de-extinction, however, I just want to note to the nominator that backbreedings are not usually considered true de-extinctions :) --cyclopia ^speak! 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, the term doesn't seem to be notable based on a quick search. I also looked through some of the citations that have been used on page and didn't see the term mentioned in the sources as well. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of extinct species. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 12 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.