Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phylogenetic niche conservatism

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic niche conservatism[edit]

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

Term pulled directly from the paper that is used as reference. Essay/OR would seem to apply to what the poster is using for reference. Seems to be a basic reprint of the main point of the referenced essay. Everything stated in the article is pulled from the one reference and reworded just enough to not be an outright copyright violation. Caffeyw (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs serious work, but the term is used in many papers as a search immediately reveals. More refs are needed, and much improved discussion, but those are jobs for editing, not for deletion. See e.g. OU, RSPB, Nature. There are hundreds more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Phylogenetic niche conservatism" gets over a thousand hits on Google Scholar and the first page of hits shows multiple papers where this topic is the main subject of the paper. More reliable references appear in GBooks. This is a clearly notable topic, as the nominator would have seen if they had followed WP:BEFORE. The article does need work, but none of the problems are insurmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a point in WP:BEFORE, which is to search for references before nominating, to avoid errors of this sort. A nom. is currently permitted to ignore searching, and make the inevitable errors, but it wastes the time of others. As I have been saying for years, basic checking should be obligatory. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I detect a SNOWflake here ... if someone could do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2013 (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.