Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockatiel (aviculture)

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. Sandstein 11:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatiel (aviculture)[edit]

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

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

Article was completely off-topic from the subject of aviculture; even with many off-topic sections removed, the article has no substantial information on the aviculture of this species. This article was written in an informal, blog-post style featuring opinions in place of facts. See Talk page for more reasons as well as a list of information that would be needed to salvage the article. MinervaELS (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP:NOTESSAY/not a how-to guide grounds with an important note this is a completely different topic than the article Cockatiel, which should absolutely remain. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, article also redundant since there is already one for Cockatiel. MinervaELS (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article being entirety essay (and so WP:NOTESSAY). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely not sourced. At best trim and move into its own section in Cockatiel, with which it has significant duplicated material. (I see it was split out some time ago.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several users appear to be trying to "fix" it but are continuing to add blog/essay type material related to pet-keeping and not aviculture (breeding/commercial raising). It seems that this is a persistent issue with this article, so deletion is likely the best option. MinervaELS (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a persistent one in Wikipedia, especially common in the decade that this article was created, exhibited by Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture (AfD discussion), Tang_in_popular_culture (AfD discussion), and Syrinx_in_popular_culture (AfD discussion) amongst many others: an editor sees poor content in an article, and instead of dealing with it properly xe cuts and pastes it into a new article, where it languishes for years until nominated for deletion. All too often, the deletion discussion points to a merger, of content that was not wanted in the original article and that came from it in the first place. And we go around the cycle again.
This is not "in popular culture" but "(aviculture)" but the lifecycle of the article has been the same and people have wanted to push it around the cycle again. One major problem, not realized by the nominator here, is that "(aviculture)" was not correct in the first place, and a better title would have been a good start. Another major problem was that incompetent editing whilst adding other content blanked the section in the main article back in 2012, which the nominator has referred to on the talk page and others have referred to in this discussion but which has not actually existed there for years.
We really do not lose anything by deleting this, as the original content is in the original article's history, and pretty much none of the work that was envisaged eleven years ago has been done. Contratry to what the nominator says here in this discussion, most of the changes in the decade since the split have been people progressively excising more and more of the content of the article for being subjective opinion that is at best sourced to an amateur WWW site, which is what should have boldly happened in the main article in the first place.
Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2019 (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.