Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioluminescence phytoplankton


 * 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Bioluminescence phytoplankton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In addition to a grammatically incorrect title, the "sources" in this were all fake. One was the NatGeo main page, the other two were commercial links. None of them contained anything even remotely related to the article. We already have Bioluminescence, and there is no value to a redirect from a grammatically incorrect title or a merge of unsourced information (which I'm reasonably sure we can't do anyway). MSJapan (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sources, which have been rather unhelpfully removed from the article, are not fake but were linked to the top level of the three web sites. It is very easy to find the three immediate sources. These are not great sources but the topic is a legitimate one. I suggest a better title would be Bioluminescence in plankton which seems to be a topic we are not covering well at present (but see Dinoflagellate). A previous PROD was correctly removed with the suggestion that the content was merged with Bioluminescence or Phytoplankton but I think an full article on a somewhat broader topic (linked to from both articles) would be more helpful to the reader. It is sad (and completely unsatisfactory) that there has been no attempt to discuss any of this on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is not an appropriate title, even for a redirect. The text is not usable for anything -- whether sourced or not, it is such terrible English that for anyone who knows the subject it would be easier to write a new article, and for anyone who doesn't know the subject, it would be necessary to find enough sources to write one, and in the end it would be easier not to look at this. Perhaps someone who does know the subject could create a stub titled whatever. (Is the reduplication of "bioluminescence" with "phytoplankton" really necessary? What's wrong with "luminescent phytoplankton"?) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: While I appreciate Thincat's argument that there might be a notable topic behind all this, neither the title nor the content are salvageable. I do not see the point of keeping, moving the page and blanking it. I know there is genuine debate among editors about whether a poor article is better than no article at all ("redlinks are an incentive to writers!") but the wrong title surely tips the balance towards WP:TNT. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move change to Delete I agree that the title is grammatically incorrect, but it appears the science is correct. The article's creator is most likely a newbie and not familiar with Wikipedia's writing and editing standards. The intended topic appears to be notable because it has received significant coverage in the press, i.e, reliable sources. Also, User:Thincat showed that sources are available, which includes a peer reviewed article. On Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it is recommended that if a topic is notable but the writing is poor that it should be kept. I am going to rewrite it into at least an acceptable stub and add sources. I just don't have time at the moment. If anyone wishes to jump in feel free ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am changing my Ivote to Delete because this topic has already been sufficiently covered on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. This article is an attempt to redo what we already have such as Bioluminescence,  dinoflagellates, phytoplankton,  luciferin, luciferase and so on. This article peripherally touches on the science, but our articles are already well written and (obviously) scientifically accurate, with plenty of coverage. Hence, there is no need for this article or its grammatically incorrect titling. I'm sorry to say this, but it is ridiculous having this article on Wikipedia. The newbie author that wrote this might wish to consider reading Wikipedia's Five Pillars before doing any more editing ( needs to start by ). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see it as a content fork with content that is of (much) less quality than what we already have in other articles. With the title being wrong, a redirect is also off the table. DeVerm (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2016 (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.