Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turtle-dove

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 Streptopelia. Any merging from history is up to editorial consensus. Sandstein 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle-dove[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork from Streptopelia. Note: The history is somewhat confusing in that it shows versions going back to 2002. But the pre-2016 versions were an article about biblical references to the "turtle-dove" which was reduced to a redirect; so the 2016 versions truly constitute a new article. The POV differences are: 1) Streptopelia says that the genus contains three lineages which are “Possibly separable” into three genera, whereas the new article says they definitely are three separate genera. 2) The new article says that the three genera have the collective common name “turtle-dove,” whereas Streptopelia lists several species including “turtle dove” as part of their common names but says nothing about it’s being a collective common name. 3) The pre-2016 consensus was that the meaning of unqualified “turtle dove” was the single species European turtle dove, and the title was a redirect to that article.

I have no opinion which point of view is correct, but I believe that there should not be multiple articles on the subject, and that the one article should retain the history of Streptopelia. I am not necessarily saying the article should be deleted: Perhaps it should be redirected to Streptopelia (or to European turtle dove if that is the usual meaning of unqualified “turtle dove”). —teb728 t c 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe this is a POV-fork; "Streptopelia" is about a genus, this is about a higher level of taxonomic organization. Ornithologists are notorious for changing common names, using the name of a species also as the name for a larger taxonomic group, and so forth. You're right, there's considerable redundancy between Streptopelia, Turtle-dove, and [[Columbinae]; but this should be resolved through mergers, not through deletion, because there is no evidence that actual disruption is going on, and the history may prove useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Streptopelia article is about a genus defined to include lineages that might be split off as separate genera. It neutrally describes the uncertainty over whether they should be split off. The Turtle-dove article is about exactly the same lineages/genera. Indeed the species list of Turtle-dove was obviously copied from the species list of Streptopelia. So there is not “considerable” redundancy between the Streptopelia and Turtle-dove articles but total redundancy. If and when ornithologists decide to assign the common name “turtle-dove” to this group of lineages/genera, then it might make sense to move (not copy) the Streptopelia article to the turtle-dove title. The Streptopelia article is more complete and has valuable history. —teb728 t c 06:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Streptopelia, they are discussing exactly the same thing with some POV forking, so there is no justification at all for separate articles, though there may be a little merging to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How come why not (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who expanded the article from a redirect has been indefed for vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stumbled apon this page today while looking at different birds. Although a small page, I found it useful and educational. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be about gaining and sharing knowledge?

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.73.67 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if it is the second day of Christmas and I come to Wikipedia to find out what on Earth turtle-doves are, I should expect there to be something other than a non-existent page. There should be an article, a redirect, a disambiguation, or something; all of which can be made by anyone with the editing tool. As such, please explain why an administrator using the deletion tool to remove a whole edit history is required at any point at all, here. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if the outcome is merge and redirect, we could have agreed that without an admin to help. However, here we are, and we still think a merge and redirect is the right answer. Once we're all happy, we can have this closed and then we can do the merge, and yes, you'll have a redirect between the two names for the same subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Streptopelia as per nom: it is redundant except for the alternative name. DeVerm (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why you are burdening an administrator with the task of removing the entire edit history, and why removing the entire edit history is necessary. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Excuse me? I am not burdening anybody; I am offering some of my time to evaluate this afd; research the subject, adding to the little knowledge that I have on the subject and then giving my !vote with arguments. Even the picture is a straight copy, there is no question about it, really. If at all, I could imagine an argument to be made for a disambiguation page instead of a redirect but even that would be stretching it for most editors on AfD DeVerm (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are not excused. You know what writing the word "delete" in boldface means. So please explain why you are placing that work onto an administrator and why you think it to be necessary. This is now the second request for an actual deletion rationale. Not a rationale for someone with the edit tool to make a redirect, but a rationale for an administrator to use the deletion tool. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for pointing out my mistake Uncle G. Feel free to be a bit more direct with me so that I get it first time :) DeVerm (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Streptopelia. "Alternatively, they could all be placed in Streptopelia." Well duh :) There seems to be no added value to this article.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2016 (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.