Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal locomotion on the surface layer

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 of the debate was Keep, and then rename, and add cleanup tag. enochlau (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal locomotion on the surface layer

This is a strange article. I'm quite sure that there is a science of studying animals which move about using the surface tension of water, but Google at least supports my view that it doesn't have this name. Perhaps a delete is too strong - the information should be moved to a correctly named article and cleaned up. Richard W.M. Jones 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. What exactly is wrong with this article? It's clear, referenced, wikified, and refers to a very interesting and noteworthy topic. Delete is indeed too strong. I could be persuaded to split the article up into two (ie lizards and water striders). keep. Robinh 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Above is the article's creator) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD?

Comment The title is a bit unwieldy. Wouldn't this be a subset of an article on animal locomotion? -- Tenebrae 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and look again. Seems like OR, title is - ahem - quirky, but the concept is sound. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup/Merge Can this information not live with the respective animal articles? The title is too vague, how many researchers would look for this? -- (aeropagitica) 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Interesting article, I think, lurking somewhere in there; I took the liberty of asking some questions on the Talk page, just what sprang to mind. I suggest linking the relevant animals' articles to this one, rather than merging, as this is a standalone topic. The title is no good, though. Who'd search on that? Sliggy 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. -- JJay 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and learn how to google for references. -- Marvin147 02:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Animal locomotion links to the page. That's how a researcher would find it. The "point" of the article is that meniscus climbing is a totally new mode of animal locomotion. Read the Nature paper; it's really good (and, BTW, is a contraindication for the page being OR). Meniscus climbing happens to be "animal locomotion on the surface layer" but the energetics are different from water striders. Sliggy, you ask some good questions on the talk page. I'll do my best to answer them. I am corresponding with Jonn W. M. Bush (co author on the Nature paper) so maybe we can have some authoritative answers. Best wishes, Robinh 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to animal locomotion on the surface layer of water. —Ruud 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Animal locomotion on the surface layer of water. Ruud's copyediting has improved it a lot. (I am the original nominator). Richard W.M. Jones 17:50, 5 January 2006 (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.