Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phylogeography

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 of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phylogeography

Incorrectly tagged as speedy. This term exists, but I don't see it growing beyond a dictdef. I say we Transwiki to Wiktionary (TransWiktionary?). --Deathphoenix 14:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there are some folks who may interpret my Transwiki vote as a vote for deleting valuable, encyclopedic information, maybe I should just explicitly state that I am not voting for delete. Thank you. --Deathphoenix 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think a useful article could be written on the subject (by someone who knows anything about Phylogeography, so that's me out for a start), and if not, it can always be merged into speciation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above ... I've tagged it with {{expert}} now. Daniel Case 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• What's up with this whole deletion craze? I prefer not to have other people tell me how to use my time by putting articles up for deletion. I fixed one article today, not doing it again (and I'm mighty pissed off now, could have written a much better article in my own time, with my books which didn't follow me on Xmas vacation, but hey, this is all you're gonna get!) As @topic, you should lobby the people from Category:Phylogenetics. - Samsara 17:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just be thankful I put it up on AfD instead of speedy deleting it, as it was originally tagged. It's a rare article in CSD where I simply remove the speedy tag without putting it up for AfD. --Deathphoenix 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems like there's a lot more to say on the subject (any scientists working with this, who came up with the idea, what conclusions can be reached using the method?). Obli (Talk) 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per fuddlemark and others. rodii 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep real, expandable. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here's an alternative suggestion for the interim: merge article with either biogeography or phylogenetics. If there's support for this idea, we should vote on which article it could best be merged with. I think chances are it will grow more quickly that way, and could become a separate article again when it's matured. - Samsara 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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.