Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin200

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 Charles Darwin. feel free to merge any sourced material from the history Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin200[edit]

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

Short article which describes an event which has been and gone. The article only talks about what will be, but has no information on what happened during the events and is therefore of no lasting significance. Suggest any salvageable content is merged into Charles Darwin. Simple Bob (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Charles Darwin. Note to nominator, this could have been accomplished by just Redirecting to the Darwin piece. Only if there was a vigorous opposition to the redirect, should it have been brought here. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charles Darwin. Although the article appears to be out of date, presumably the event came, was celebrated, and went. I'm not sure of whether this meets WP:EVENT – WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT are failed, but a case could be made at least for WP:GEOSCOPE – but I don't think it would be particularly controversial to merge and redirect. Definitely worth a mention in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this event got some press coverage so a good updated article could be written. Don't merge People who go to Darwin's article are looking for information on him, not something that happened 200 years later. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Charles Darwin already includes a section titled "Commemoration," with an entire subsection titled "Darwin 2009 commemorations." If you think that topic doesn't belong in the article, you should raise the issue at Talk:Charles Darwin, not in this AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will check that out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will change my vote to Merge and split.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (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.