Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of zoology, post-Darwin


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

History of zoology, post-Darwin
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_zoology%2C_post-Darwin&diff=next&oldid=36257372 This is an anachronism. The content has some historical interest but it is not a contemporary review of value.]. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We've got people transcribing stuff from the 1911 Britannica and you want to delete it? Ruby 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs cleanup - if Encyclopedia Britannica deemed it an appropriate article for an encyclopedia, why should Wikipedia not have it? High Plains Drifter 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this process, but I nominated this article as it seemed to me to be an obvious case of an article that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if read by any serious seeker of information, and which seemed incapable of salvation without starting wholly afresh. I nominated this article for deletion after spending some time trying to edit it constructively; at first I thought maybe it could be cleaned up, but I changed my mind after trying. The problems with it as I see it are multiple. As a review of the "History of zoology post Darwin", it stops at about 1910, it only addresses a single narrow issue (and from a rather strange personal perspective), and it does so in terms so outdated that the discussion is of mere historical curiosity. Anyone reading for any factual content would be very seriously misled. I think that an article on this topic is a fine idea, but I do not think it is possible to use this text as a starting point for an article of any contemporary credibility. I have no idea why you've got people transcribing science articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, this seems crazy to me. Gleng 10:30, 26 January 2006 (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.