Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detritus


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  05:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Detritus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Yes, the word "detritus" is used in the various contexts mentioned here. Does this make "detritus" notable? No, it makes it a word— a word that describes many things besides decaying plant mater. "Detritus" can refer to any bit of matter out of place, making a Wikipedia entry for it fundamentally a dictionary entry. The processes described here are not tied to this word in an encyclopedic way, they are tied to it in a vocabularistic way— vocabulary is the stuff of dictionaries. The references happen to use the word detritus— again, that doesn't make detritus notable (note how even saying that sounds odd). KDS 4444 Talk  02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep - The article is about the detritus as a material, not about the definition and use of detritus as a word. Conforms to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- Paleorthid (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That the article itself is not phrased as a definition doesn't mean the article skirts WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this only means it has been presented here as more than a dictionary entry, which I still believe it fundamentally is not. KDS 4444  Talk  22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since 2006, Detritus (biology) has redirected to Detritus. The lede specifies "In biology...". You object that the unmodified term detritus has a meaning outside of biology, equivalent to refuse. Instead of deletion, why are you not proposing the article be renamed back to Detritus (biology)? Is it because you feel Detritus (geology) should be deleted per the same policy? -- Paleorthid (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Beginnings of sourcing for a real materials science subject, so acceptable for wikipedia. Poor article as of this writing though. -Markeer 17:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is nothing like a dictionary entry and, even if it were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete the page., Andrew D. (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. That it is not phrased as such does not mean that it is a topic that warrants a standalone article.  We already have an article on Detritus (geology), perhaps this should be redirected there rather than have two articles?  KDS 4444  Talk  22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * KDS has it backwards. WP:NOTADICTIONARY is summarised as "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are."  So, the fact that Detritus (geology) uses the same word is irrelevant here as it is not the same topic.  That page is is about mineral debris whereas this one is about organic debris.  The latter topic is notable as it is easy to find substantial sources such as Detritus and Microbial Ecology in Aquaculture.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Detritus has a specific meaning in this article, as particulate deceased and decaying organic matter, along with feces. It is the food for detritivores and decomposers and forms the basis for the detrital food chain. Detritus is a basic concept in biology and ecology; a simple WP:BEFORE search shows "detritus food chain" gets thousands of hits on GBooks, many of the first hits being ecology textbooks and more than a thousand hits in GScholar. The concept seems highly notable. The article could use better sourcing, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. A highly notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, I know that the word is popular and that it occurs lots of places. So does the world "is" and the word "the".  This isn't a question of sourcing (per se) but a question of "what is Wikipedia?"  If it is not a dictionary, then this word does not belong here (unless it acquires some specific meaning such as the name of a popular and notable band or a notable book title, etc.).  Inasmuch as "detritus" simply means "refuse" (which it does, according to the references given) then this article is a near perfect example of what Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be about.  And if it isn't, then I ask those !voting to keep to indicate what they think is? (Go on, think of a word and conduct a search.  It's all there.)   KDS 4444  Talk  22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, detritus is jargon that has a specific meaning in biology and ecology. Detritus doesn't mean "refuse". Refuse refers to any sort of discarded or unwanted materials; a heap of scrap metal could be called refuse. But detritus, used in the sense here, is confined to organic material and includes matter like dead organisms, which are neither discarded nor unwanted. Biologists refer to organisms that eat this material as detritivores, not refusivores. The fact that "detritus" may have a more general meaning to the lay public has no bearing on this specific topic. There is a disambiguation page for the word at Detritus (disambiguation) if you are looking for other uses of the term.--Mark viking (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 29 February 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.