Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazon insects


 * 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 redirect to Amazon rainforest. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1  talk 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazon insects

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic separate from the Amazon rainforest itself Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect Amazing; this has shambled along in its current state for 14 years. Full of sweeping statements but all of them unsourced - no, the single external link is not a usable reference; it contains none of that stuff. There's likely an article here but this isn't it (to be clear, I don't doubt the topic's notability - see our slew of "Biodiversity of..." articles). For the time being, redirect to Amazon_rainforest, and if someone wants to write an actual sourced article they can do it at any time. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a topic that could potentially be made into a worthwhile article, but in its current unsourced state it isnt worth keeping. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Amazon_rainforest, where insects are briefly mentioned. Amazing insect biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest has been often noted and so this is undoubtedly a notable topic and the article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. (Does this make me part of the keep brigade? It is best to comment on content, not editors.) But the article unsourced and I didn't find any scholarly, readily available sources with which to shore up its content. If someone else improves it per WP:HEY, I would be happy to keep the article. Until then it's best to redirect to the one sourced fact in Amazon_rainforest and categorize this as an . -- 18:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect will do. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now. As pointed out above, it's entirely possible that a good article could be written on this subject, but what we have now is not worth keeping. It reads like a elementary schooler's science class assignment - except the elementary schooler would be expected to cite their sources. Spicy (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect to Amazon_rainforest - As stated a couple times above already, it is certainly possible that a good article on the subject could be created. However, the current article is completely unsourced, and thus should not be retained until a time that such an article is actually created.  Redirecting the name to the proper section of the main article on the Amazon rainforest for now is sufficient, and if/when an actual well-sourced article on the topic is written, it can be spun back out.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now Spudlace (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (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.