Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baja California Rat Snake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Baja California Rat Snake
As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -Soltak 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.--Fenice 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's not the topic I have a problem with but the content, or rather the lack of content. If someone else was interested in expanding (I don't know nearly enough to do so) I'd be more than happy to withdraw the vfd request. -Soltak 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Then mark it with a stub or expansion topic or find the WikiProject snakes or look up some info or find some herpophile Wikipedians and ask for input ... but don't VFD an article about a subject when you accept it's a perfectly valid one for an encylcopedia article. Ben-w 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would remind you that this article could have been (and still can) simply be speedied due to lack of content beyond restating the title. -Soltak 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- And then we would not have an article about the snake. Now we do. Which do you think is better? Ben-w 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant at this point becuase I withdrew the request but I'll respond anyway. It is always, always better to have no article at all than to have a poorly written one with no valuable content. -Soltak 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- If those were the only two options, sure. They aren't. Ben-w 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant at this point becuase I withdrew the request but I'll respond anyway. It is always, always better to have no article at all than to have a poorly written one with no valuable content. -Soltak 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- And then we would not have an article about the snake. Now we do. Which do you think is better? Ben-w 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would remind you that this article could have been (and still can) simply be speedied due to lack of content beyond restating the title. -Soltak 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Then mark it with a stub or expansion topic or find the WikiProject snakes or look up some info or find some herpophile Wikipedians and ask for input ... but don't VFD an article about a subject when you accept it's a perfectly valid one for an encylcopedia article. Ben-w 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's not the topic I have a problem with but the content, or rather the lack of content. If someone else was interested in expanding (I don't know nearly enough to do so) I'd be more than happy to withdraw the vfd request. -Soltak 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Following expansion by Kappa there is no longer a need for vfd. Request Withdrawn -Soltak 22:18, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
