Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niche adaptation

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 merge to Adaptation. Very selectively, as discussed. Sandstein 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niche adaptation[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 redirected to Adaptation a year ago after a merge discussion. No merge was actually performed on the basis that this is an essay with no content worthy of merging into the existing article. The creator has recently returned to the page requesting restoring. Nothing has changed since the original merge discussion, this page reproduces content that already exists at Adaptation and related articles. The content should be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge anything worth saving: per nom, yes, I recall the events; it was a student contribution. The topic is a non-starter, and there is still nothing there worth doing anything with. We already have articles on Ecological niche, which, er, fills the niche for an article about that subject (all to do with adaptation in an environment), and as stated on Adaptation. It is hard to see how an additional article could usefully fit into the hierarchy of articles here, but the current sorry effort certainly doesn't fit the bill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to see why we would need an article under this title when we have Adaptation and Ecological niche, as mentioned above. Moreover, both of those are better-developed than this, which is a rather meandering essay that loads a lot of specifics into the introduction, making it somewhat arduous to read. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Selective merge Surplus to requirements for the reasons named above. Update: Changing to merge, because something may be salvageable, and to get closer to a consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order This discussion should be closed immediatley per WP:SKCRIT 2.d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". There is an existing merge discussion and that should be resolved rather than starting another separate discussion here. If more input and formality seems needed, then the RfC process should be used. See also WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:MERGE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson Andrew, that's not what happened. After a period of some months of quiet discussion (few editors bothered to join in), I merged the articles. Recently, the student author resurrected it without discussion and after a brief edit-war, another editor brought it here. We have sufficient articles on the topic already, and there's not really anything to merge; since redirecting has been challenged, there's little alternative to a deletion discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly an alternative, as I said: use the Request for Comment process. And the assertion that ""there's not really anything to merge" is false. For example, the page in question has a section about horizontal gene transfer as a significant mechanism. The adaptation page currently has nothing about that; it just talks of genetic variability and mutation. To deliberately use the deletion function to erase all such content and its history just to win an edit war with a new editor is outrageous; contrary to all the policies which I have listed. Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't agree. Merging was (last year) and remains the right answer; I don't much care whether a redirect is left ("merge") or not ("delete"), as long as the article is not recreated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly disagree with Andrew Davidsons interpretation, I nominated this article for deletion on the basis that following a merge discussion over a year ago it was redirected with no useful content to merge. As I said in my nomination the article replicates content found in adaptation and related articles. As such it is a WP:CONTENTFORK and should be deleted.Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion was not properly or formally closed. There were only two participants when Chiswick Chap said that he was closing and he was one of them. But WP:MERGECLOSE states that "the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. When Ssraza discovered what had been done, he naturally objected and reverted and so the close lacks consensus. The correct procedure to call for more participants in the discussion and a proper formal close per WP:RfC. Starting another discussion at AfD while leaving the other discussion open is procedurally wrong. And it is inappropriate because this good faith, valid content should not be deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the big talk, the material needs to be merged. I already changed my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge discussion that stays open for more than two months and has only two participants, who agree, can of course be closed by either of them. There is no requirement for a quorum of three, nor does unanimity require an uninvolved closer, or whatever Andrew postulates. I assume he has participated in enough normal merge discussions to be aware of this, and is merely doing his wikilawyering act on behalf of a random deletion here. The result stands, and should be affirmed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussion was had over a year ago, and was closed by Chiswick Chap according to the consensus then when they redirected the article. There is no procedural error here. I also note that your interpretation of WP:SKCRIT is wrong since that applies to disruptive users. Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is procedurally improper. For further confirmation of this, see WP:DELAFD, "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my opinion; it's policy: "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". But as the nominator declines to withdraw, we must press on with this discussion fork. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is your incorrect opinion that there is anything improper about this nomination, and your persistent wikilawyering about it is unhelpful and ultimately pointless.Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is being misapplied. This proposal is clearly stated as due to redundancy/content forking, not a content dispute regarding this article. If an editor thinks that the other page, the page that was target to the earlier null merge, lacks important information, then the best approach is to add the material to that page, rather than (re)creating a content fork. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete Stop whining about process. There is clearly no need to have this article that duplicates content on other articles. Professors, please have your students improve existing articles rather than requiring new ones, these so often end up duplicative or essay-style. Reywas92^Talk 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion here. I actually think Ssraza's writing style is quite pleasant, which make it more of a pity that the work wasn't directed towards improving articles, or at least documenting any aspects of Niche adaptation that are unique compared to other types of Adaptation. However there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page. Ideally, I think it is best to avoid deletion if possible in order to preserve the edit history. I can't claim to know the details of procedural policy on this, but I think that the overall direction is clear. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the work actually was directed towards improving an existing article. Niche Adaptation was as stub with about two sentences before it was assigned to me for this project. I since added nearly 1000 words citing ten new sources which were peer reviewed scientific articles. If this does not add value to Wikipedia, than I don't know what does. It is not the most important page in the history of the site, but it represents everything the site stands for-people adding knowledge to the internet. Ssraza (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page" is false. The page in question has 11 references. Only one of them appears in the page adaptation. That's Darwin's Origin of Species but, even for that seminal work, a different edition is cited. If we consider the section headings, then we see that they are all different and do not appear in adaptation or ecological niche. So, there's less than 10% overlap and the claims of redundancy are exaggerated. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic in question was suggested as part of a set covering the field of integrated genomics. All the other topic titles in that set are blue links and, as it happens, I started one of those topics myself at a different event: beanbag genetics. All these topics seem quite respectable and sensible. The organisers were Laura Reed and Ian (Wiki Ed). The former is a professor who teaches in this field and so it would be good to get their input. Perhaps they have a view about the scope of the topic by this title and their expectation as to how this would fit alongside our other topics. Pending such expert advice, there seems to be no pressing need to take any action let alone deleting this good faith work. These topics are not concrete and discrete; they are theoretical abstractions; concepts which are used to explain and simplify the complexity of the real world. As such, their meaning tends to vary, depending upon the theoretical model. For example, adaptation currently starts by saying that it has three different meanings in this context. Likewise, ecological niche is split into three different theoretical forms. And then there are many other related topics and sub-topics. So, in this web of concepts and constructs, there is space for the view in question, especially as its title phrase is used in relevant sources and so may be expected to be the subject of search and readership. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist simply to serve as as course-space for a university class. Just because your professor decides to organize evolutionary biology in this manner doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to organize it the same way. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was, in fact, improving on an existing article. I did not create the page for Niche Adaptation, it was there already and I simply added to it. I turned the stub into a short page that goes into more detail on topics that may or may not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia. Ssraza (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[added: Selective] Merge/Delete Article seems not well balanced in terms of WP:PROPORTION, and is rather scattershot. We would be better off improving adaptation than to proceed with this content fork. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge — very careful, selective merge — to Adaptation. This simply is not a separate topic. Perhaps references and bits of prose can be salvaged and given a better life in a different environment. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge per XOReaster. Poorly balanced and doesn't really work as a separate topic. Maybe a few bits and pieces can be salvaged, but probably not very much, and so a merge would need to be more rigorous than a simple Ctrl-C Ctrl-V dump. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 11 October 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.