Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano reef

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 for now, although there seems to be some support for a merge, if anybody wants to try it. Luna Santin 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nano reef

Nano reef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Article subject inherently unverifiable; article does not reference sources. BFD1 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Please see also the argument at Talk:Nano reef#Serious concerns. BFD1 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I vote to retain. Nano reef and pico reef (also covered in the article) are valid terms and merit an article devoted to them. Given some time we can add references. Mmoyer 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge any referenced info with the Marine aquarium article. There's enough unique information about keeping small tanks to warrant a section in the broader article about reefkeeping, assuming references can be provided. Right now the page reads more like a hobbyist's how-to than an encyclopedia article. BFD1 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Marine aquarium. Merge and delete is not accepted due to GFDL issues. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a primary reference to tank size and a reference about boxed seawater. I still believe this article has value, especially since a Google search for "pico reef" lists this Wikipedia article as the seventh from the top, and a Google search for "Nano reef" comes up number 9. Mmoyer 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The ranking of wikipedia in a google search is not at all germaine to the question. Wikipedia ranks highly in searches in general. BFD1 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is the single fastest growing aspect in the industry, and I have several books in which I can verify the information, and cite the article. Although it's a specific type of aquarium, it is much different (and probably more popular) than a Reef aquarium or a Brackish water aquarium which both have there own respective articles. Dark jedi requiem 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You're changing the question; I am talking about a merge with Marine aquarium. How is it "much different" from a Marine aquarium? A nano reef is an aquarium with saltwater and marine organisms. Nano reefs are by definition a subset of marine aquaria. BFD1 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Point of order: BFD, you nominated the article for deletion, so that's what we are voting on. Let's resolve this single issue, and if the vote is to keep, then you can later nominate it for MergeTo with Marine aquarium. Mmoyer 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, though I'd argue whether it's more popular than either a reef or brackish water aquarium! Growth rate isn't much of a criterion, either, and however popular nano reef tanks get, they're surely going to be outnumber by goldfish tanks and tropical aquaria 100 to 1. But yes, it's an increasingly popular branch of the hobby, and probably deserves an entry of its own. That said, this article is lacking in many ways. I'd like to see the specifics about the procedural / technological differences between nano reefs and regular reefs, and I'd also like a potted history, emphasising the aquarists that pioneered the discipline. I'd like to see the article say why nano reef tanks in specifics, not generalities. All aquaria have issues with pH, ammonium, etc. What's different is the thermal / chemical instability of small volumes of water, the sensitivity of the fish compared with freshwater fish in small aquaria, and so on. The section Pico Reef should be merged with the introduction (e.g., ...very small nano reef tanks are sometimes called pico reefs). Otherwise, it's repetitive and not really saying anything new, just "as above, but more so". Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Agree with Dark jedi requiem. Also, I think deletion is an overreaction, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The reasons BFD1 gave do not justify deletion. With some clean-up and references, the article will be perfectly fine. --Melanochromis 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Looks alright, just needs improvement. It's something that I've seen before, and they're growing quite popular. --Emevas 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'keep AfD is not supposed to be the way to get articles improved, but if people don't do it right the first time, it do seem to provide an incentive.DGG 22:02, 14 January 2007 (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.