RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pikaia gracilens
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pikaia gracilens | Result: Merge[edit]
Delete[edit]
Keep[edit]
Merge/redirect[edit]
- 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!
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Neat!
- 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)
- We're not an encyclopedia. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Per above and comments on linking to transitional fossils below. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) - It's the only option. Spud (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
