2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $9223.37Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pikaia gracilens

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pikaia gracilens | Result: Merge[edit]

Pikaia gracilens (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Merge into list of transitional fossils. Delete what can't be merged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    I agree, my vote was for delete only because I don't know how to create an AfD discussion without voting for delete, will change now. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Neat! Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. We're not an encyclopedia. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Per above and comments on linking to transitional fossils below. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. It's the only option. Spud (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. As per discussion below, I'm changing my vote. Hertzy (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • What about the couple of other stubs linked from List of transitional fossils? If this passes, I move we snow-delete the lot of them. Hertzy (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    The article List of transitional fossils will always be missional, in my opinion. We need to meet the Creationist claim that we can't provide a list of transitional fossils — we can, and do. What we don't need is stand-alone articles on various species identified by paleontology. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    So we're in agreement, then, that the transitional fossil stubs should be deleted. I wasn't talking about the decent-length articles or the list itself. Hertzy (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    We're in agreement assuming this is what you mean: merging all of the transitional fossil stubs into the List of transitional fossils article (where possible). If so, then yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Fair enough, as long as it's not me stuck with the job of doing the merging.Hertzy (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Good post! Also, I think that sentiment warrants moving your own vote above from "Delete" to "Merge". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Some have OK articles, but yeah, this shouldn't need AFD - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)