Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Animal

Merlin Environmental Solutions

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

This fails WP:NCORP. Majority of the sources are not about the company but about people related to it. And there are also much primary sources in the article. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistic classification of Sarcopterygii

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

This appears to have been created with the sole purpose of being a taxonomic list not based on the classification of any particular author. I tried replacing some of the content with actual published classifications, though without actually expecting this page to evolve into something useful. Everything that can be included here can also be included in Sarcopterygii. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:43, 1 May 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 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarcopterygii. There is value in presenting alternative classification systems - the one used on WP is not necessarily the "right" one, and several are more recent than that one. However, there is no need to have a separate article for these. Place under Sarcopterygii#Classification. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirzakhania

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

Not an accepted genus, apparently, per IRMNG (link). This is a Junior subjective synonym of the subgenus Heodes, within the genus Lycaena. (source) I guess a redirect to Lycaena could work, but I'm a bit unsure on that as this isn't a synonym of that, it's a synonym of a subgenus within it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lycaena. As long as the subgenus is covered in that article, that would seem to be the suitable target. Not sure about precedents but the practice seems sensible. We certainly want it to redirect somewhere.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Draftify‎. WP:POINTy keep !votes discarded. With no compelling argument against the WP:ATD, closing as draftify. Nominator reminded that anyone can unilaterally draftify an article - far less bitey than an AfD nom. asilvering (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of sand loss on sea turtles

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

Wikipedia is not the place to store your term paper. Might I suggest Google Drive? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Organisms. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Sea turtle#Conservation status and threats. There is some information here (at Impact of sand loss on sea turtles#Effect on sea turtle habitats) that could be integrated into the existing article. The bulk is however well covered at Coastal erosion and Beach (which BTW is in a shocking state of referencing...) and/or constitutes essay-style padding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I hadn't even seen Threats to sea turtles, mentioned below. That is the obvious merge target. The fact that there are no less than three different large articles to which this material could be merged demonstrates that we really do not need another standalone production that consists of 2/3 duplication. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:CSK,Absence of a deletion rationale. Nomination is a single, unnecessarily bitey, sentence that does not constitute an objective deletion rationale based on policies & guidance. The maintenance template {{Term paper}} has been reasonably applied to the article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should further say that I agree that the article as it stands could be shortened and the language tightened so as to focus more specifically on the topic in question, and better integrated into the encyclopedia using wikilinks to existing articles. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" is inappropriate because the article has obvious problems - rambling scope and massive duplication of content. Dissatisfaction with the nom statement (which I agree is not very informative) is no reason to toss a substandard article that will have to dealt with back into the pot. Or to put it differently, if this was to be "speedy kept" based on these spurious arguments, I would have it back at AfD with a more elaborate rationale within a day. Let's sort it out her and leave out the unproductive process-lawyering. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I agree with SunloungerFrog, there is no valid deletion rationale given here and the nom is likely to dissuade the editor who created the article. It's been less than a day since the article was tagged "Term paper" --- at least give time for the author to update the article. There is clearly research out there, and probably enough to meet GNG on its own or enough to significantly add to similar articles on sea turtles or erosion.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not an article is kept is decided by the sourcing situation, not by the current quality of the article. I also suggest the nominator should refrain from personal attacks against other editors in the future, and provide proper a deletion rational instead. Cortador (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify The keep votes fail to advance any reason to keep the article, which is quite obviously a student essay that does not meet our standard for tone or content for articles. I urge the class instructor Use:Bcndz5 not to permit students to create in mainspace the pages listed at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/IES Abroad Barcelona/The Climate Crisis - Global Perspective, Mediterranean Context (Spring), as basically none of these have appropriate encyclopedic tone or are appropriate topics for standalone encyclopedia articles, the worst of which being User:Jkraus1313/Floating Cities and Amphibious Architecture. Articles should generally not have specific titles with complex names like some of these. This article would be better trimmed of the background, irrelevant info like all of the Long-term impacts section, and essay-type fluff and the topic instead included at Threats to sea turtles. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be content enough with draftification to allow the creating editors a second pass and more time to work on the article, and ultimately to decide whether it is better to incorporate the content into an existing article. Courtesy ping to Bcndz5 as class instructor - I think the wikisource in Reywas92's comment above is missing an r. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too specific for mainspace. The keep votes don't provide an argument why this topic is notable. Threats to sea turtles is sufficient enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no specific mention in the nomination per WP:CSK mentioned by SunloungerFrog and a remark that can pass as a personal biting remark too "not a place to store your" with "suggest Google Drive" sounds like an attack or rant and goes against WP:GTD. Furthermore, the time period is not too long. Do give time and check more sources if they are added with allowing further edits by creator/editors. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the origin of this scurrilous notion that an "insufficient nom rationale" alone justifies a keep vote, when at the same time multiple commenters provide a number of valid rationales. Ignoring those is a peculiar type of non-constructive WP:POINTiness that may feel righteous but accomplishes nothing else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your pov and the nomination itself is WP:POINTY, and I have stated it is against WP:GTD which is constructive. Anyone should not get in arguments to make other's points lesser or present their own opinion as a better one. By the way, here is a great point from the same you pointed out-

do not nominate an article for deletion that you don't really believe ought to be deleted, giving the same rationale. with giving no reasons it is the same as noted here.

You can have your pov as long as it is not demeaning others and others can have theirs likewise. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not for clean up. I wouldn't oppose a "smerger". Bearian (talk) 20:03, 4 May 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.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]