Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Hills Crossbill

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. Editorial decisions regarding merge/redirect can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Hills Crossbill[edit]

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

See talk page for article MDuchek (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take the liberty to copy-and-paste the relevant comments of the nom on the article talk page:

"I think this article should be deleted. Basically this is not a species of bird as the article states, but rather a subspecies of what is known in North America as red crossbill. The proposal to have it split as its own species was just rejected by the American Ornithologists' Union, and so it remains a proposal. If you see the study, you'll see it says "we recommend..." In fact, it is therefore inaccurate to have an article stating that this is a species as this hasn't been accepted, just proposed (and now rejected by at least one authority). (You'll also see the article is an orphan.) As for merging it, the main article for red crossbill (see above) already mentions the South Hills population/subspecies. One could add to that article, but it would be more a matter of adding to that article than merging this article into that one as this one has very little information. Maybe it could be a redirect (why not), but I don't know that it even deserves that. I haven't been able to find the decision and the rationale (it will appear in the journal I believe), but here is a discussion of it: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1006a&L=birdchat&P=1474
Here is the text of the vote http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2009_A_votes_web.php MDuchek (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)"

--Cyclopia ^talk 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be redirected. The situation with the crossbills is very complicated, and the Red Crossbill looks like it is actually a large number of species. How exactly it divides is very unclear, yet, so most authorities treat it as one species with a number of "types"—even "subspecies" is not used often—provisionally, and so should we. However, South Hills Crossbill should exist as a redirect, especially once someone has already created an article with this name. —innotata 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no reason to delete. If it's a valid proposal, it's appropriate as a redirect. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search finds this named type of bird discussed in numerous scholarly articles, particularly in evolutionary biology; it passes WP:GNG. If it's actually a subspecies of Red Crossbill, the article should say so, but that's no reason to delete or redirect. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that this was proposed as a species and rejected by the American Ornithologists' Union adds to the subject's notability, rather than detracting from it. It is sourceable information that should be added to the article. As an aside, I consider holding a vote on whether this a separate species a rather strange way of doing science - almost as bad as holding a vote on whether this article should be deleted (except, of course, that we pretend that it's not a vote). Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was on whether the AOU would include the species on its list—people can follow any taxonomy they like, as long as the names they use are valid, but many people follow lists like the AOU's. I think it should be merged (redirected, but this is really what I mean), since it is better to treat all these poorly-understood variations in the crossbills under articles on the species provisionally recognised. —innotata 23:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I proposed this mainly because the AOU decision showed there was a lack of consensus on confirming this as a separate species, as opposed to one of many subspecies. Part of the issue is the fact that apparently the species is probably a bunch of species (one comment notes that there also are 11 other subspecies in the Old World), so it seemed inappropriate to have an article on just one of these. On the other hand, I understand that it is notable, but I still think treating it as a species (as the article does) seems inappropriate. You could also modify the article to regard it as a subspecies, as is does for instance with the yellow-rumped warbler. But that species has very well-defined and widespread eastern (myrtle warbler) and western (Audubon's warbler) versions (which some are now suggesting be re-split), whereas this is a very isolated and restricted population and just happens to be the one that happened to be the subject of a study. So I think the redirect/merge makes more sense in this case and it makes more sense to discuss them all in the main article on common crossbill, which already has information on the South Hills population. MDuchek (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your words "you could also modify the article". You are just as capable of doing this as whoever you are addressing this comment to, and the whole point of this being a wiki is that anyone who sees that something needs to be changed can simply do it, rather than tell other people to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect until scientific consensus declares it a separate species. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is certainly that species are notable; but that doesn't mean that subspecies are non-notable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to make an identical comment but got an edit conflict. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is not notable. For WP:GNG standards it is. However I think the content is better presented in the species article, given that the amount of information on the subspecies is fairly small. It's just a content organization issue. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reader who looks for "South Hills Crossbill" should receive information about this population, and the doubts about whether it is a separate species or not, when using it as a search term, rather than being redirected somewhere that doesn't explain the research on the subject, or where it is necessary to wade through loads of other information to find such an explanation. And adding this information to Common Crossbill would present readers interested in that subject with an unbalanced view. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you directed to that place in the article and explained in the article that it was considered by some to be a species, it wouldn't be that unbalanced. But I see your point. MDuchek (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been pointed out above, the question is whether the South Hills Crossbill is notable, not whether it is a separate specie or a subspecies. If there is significant writings on the South Hills Crossbill it is notable and is worthy of a stand alone article. --Pink Bull 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all editors agree that every subject that could be called notable needs an stand-alone article: many think that in some cases it is good to combine closely related topics or subtopics. —innotata 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, at the very least, it will remain as a redirect to another article. Thus it will not be deleted. Afd's are really intended to discuss whether articles should be deleted due to lack of notability or verifiability. Discussions about merging, formatting, and the renaming of specific topics should best be taken place at the topic talk pages, where the editors that have specialized knowledge of the topic can decide what to do.--Pink Bull 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I and most editors can scarcely disagree with. Is it usual for AFDs to be closed at this sort of stage? —innotata 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussions usually close after 7 days. The close will undoubtedly reflect the consensus at this talk page not to delete the article. --Pink Bull 19:29, 3 August 2010 (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.