Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-backed

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 all in favor of search results. lifebaka++ 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green-backed[edit]

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

Partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also partial title match lists:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as nominator. Please see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-necked where the problems with this kind of page getting in between the reader and the better-suited search results were discussed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I was notified on my talk because I had prodded this a year ago. These are partial title matches, and would be best deleted to just allow readers to find what they are actually looking for. These are not topics by the same name. Btw, when I prodded it was deprodded pointing to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 29#Valid dabs? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 39#White-chinned and similar redirects. Those discussions will inform this debate, and show that the issue is not restricted to "green" prefixes, which makes this batch nomination somewhat incomplete. A general RfC might be useful. Fences&Windows 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely incomplete here. I figured I'd batch the various colors by color as I come across them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since this is a batch nomination. If I remember only that a bird is called the green throated something on a guided nature walk, and I come home and look for it, this is how I am going to find it. I can't see any utility to the reader by deleting it, and I only see benefit by enabling someone to find what they are looking for. I see no utility to listing all the articles with the word "green" in them which is what we mean by partial search terms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are properly deleted, you are going to find it on the search results which will be returned instead of the partial title match list. Wikipedia enabled someone to find what they were searching for before. All the articles with the word "green-backed" in them is also what we mean by partial title matches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as perfectly logical means of differentiating between species with similar names. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument to change the current WP:PTM guidelines, which disagree that this "perfectly logical" means is encyclopedic. The search results page is a better means. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: my first instinct was to Keep, but then I looked into it: Green-backed lists two birds. Type "Green bac" in the search box and you find ten, such as Green-backed Woodpecker, created 2007 and not renamed. So these lists are, from a sample of one, likely to be very incomplete (more so than ordinary dab pages, where someone creating a new article for a "John Smith" will be forced to recognise that there's a dab situation and may, with luck, add their new "John Smith (whatever)" to the dab page). But I wonder if there's some scope for a single page listing "phrases used to describe birds" using a lot of {{lookfrom}} links, which would then show both articles and redirects in a neat format? (Might be worth including all 3 variants - hyphen, space, single word, for thoroughness) PamD (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Such adjectival uses are better served with the search function. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most, except redirect Green-backed to Greenback (a disambiguation page) and rename Green-winged to Greenwing (disambiguation). I propose the first redirect because "green-backed" is a plausible misspelling of "Greenback" and I propose the second because my research indicates that a couple of these birds (the teal and the macaw) are sometimes called simply "greenwing." I agree with the nominator regarding the others. --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a partial-title match list in the way of the reader is bad, but putting an unmatched disambiguation page in their way would be worse. If done, I hope that {{intitle}} or {{lookfrom}} would be added to the target page help the readers get to the proper search results. If there are birds simply called "greenwing" (if that has more than WP:OR to support it), they should be disambiguated on Greenwing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is what the search box is for. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2011 (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.