Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspecificity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Qst 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspecificity

Conspecificity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This entry consists of a synonym, antonym, and arbitrary link to an article using the term. And to head it off at the pass: 'Conspecificity' is only a concept in the most trivial sense, that is, insofar as any word represents a concept. MilFlyboy 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dicdef, and unreferenced dicdef at that. Tevildo 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary It's a word in fairly common use within Biology: [1]. - Richfife 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a lot to cover in this article. For instance, methods for determining conspecificity, famous historical disputes, impact on taxonomy, etc. Conspecificity is an important concept and subject to heated debates because species is a fuzzy concept itself (cf. ring species). Look at palaeoanthropology, for instance (see "Probabilities of conspecificity", Nature 390(6655):30-31, 1997, doi:10.1038/36240). Equality (mathematics) is a much simpler concept and even starts like a dicdef, but of course it's an article. And so is conspecificity. Rl 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per R1. Bucketsofg 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep commonly invoked concept from evolutionary and ecological biology. Could certainly benefit from expansion though. Debivort 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keeep and expand with expert attention. Bearian 20:45, 2 July 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.