Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceratodus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete‎ current article and then move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratodus[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ceratodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needless disambiguation page, as there are only two topics. The extinct lungfish genus seems to be the primary topic (the Queensland settlement is a small hamlet), going by pageview counts prior to the move, so it should be the primary title per WP:DAB: A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the reclassification of things that older works say to be Ceratodus but are not named such now, Neoceratodus is a plausible third place to direct readers to, making this not a two-topic disambiguation. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't believe there is a primary topic here and the page is useful for helping readers navigate to the page they are looking for.  // Timothy :: talk  07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is demonstrably not true. The extinct lungfish is the primary topic by at least a factor of 5 [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: following Uncle G's lead, I added Neoceratodus as a third target, tipping the scales into useful-DAB territory. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Australia. Owen× ☎ 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom has it right; the genus has a strong claim as the primary topic, and for readers there is no reason for (nor any benefit in) landing at Ceratodus (genus) when searching for Neoceratodus, as we have articles for both genera and they are multiply linked by hatnote and in text. Two topics, best resolved by hatnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the other way around. People searching for things that used to be named Ceratodus need some way of knowing that Neoceratodus is where they now need to go. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, turned it round. The point remains - we don't want to vector people looking for Ceratodus to Neoceratodus because the original genus name still remains. There is a (counts) 22/28 chance that they do not actually want to go to Neoceratodus. The correct place for the reader to figure that out is at the genus article, not at a disambiguation junction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested below seems suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus, adjusting hatnotes. The town (population 28) seems to have pageviews about a tenth those of the genus - see here, complicated by the fact that the genus was at the base name until late December when it was moved. So my !vote is really Revert December 2023 pagemove because the genus is the primary topic. PamD 10:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like Move is stronger here, but there is some consensus for keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ceratodus&oldid=1197925457"