Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo sapiens


 * 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 speedy keep. Editorial options such as merging, refucussing, redirecting, etc. can be discussed on the respective article talk pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We already have a Human article. This has been a redirect to Human for two years, two mounts ago it was made an article. I don't see how this article can be anything other then a "scientific" (for lack of a better term) POV fork of Human. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit unusual for WP, but the topic our species as a species is certainly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Our our species is a species, you can't talk about a species as anything other then a species. Even when you talk about religious and philosophical views about a species, your talking about a species. If by "as a species" you mean beyond, we have Human biology for that, develop that enough to split it off into it's own Human_biology article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Are "homo sapiens" and "human" synonyms? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you define humans as the species. Some defenotins of "Human" include the whole Homo genus, which would include Neanderthals. Some just include the only non-extinct sub-species (sort of like a breed): Homo sapiens sapiens. which would exclude members of the species.


 * But to really answer your question, yes. Most sources define human as the species; not part of the species, or multiple species, but the whole species and only the species. That's the definition our human article uses, Homo and Homo sapiens sapiens have their own article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but change scope There is always some ongoing discussion at the Human article about what exactly humans are. Is it all Homo or is it Homo sapiens or is it Homo sapiens sapiens or something else? This article might be a useful place to discus the taxonomy only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can make a "Taxonomy of Humans" (or similar) for that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that. I am just pointing out that there is an issue of exactly who are humans that should be covered somewhere.  I agree that, as a duplication of the Human the article is pointless. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep there are several different ways in which "Homo sapiens" and "human" could be considered separate topics. For one "Homo sapiens" is simply a species, whereas Human includes a whole range of ideological connotaions such as "humanity" and "humanism" that don't apply to the simple biological topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is useful for discussing taxonomy. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have slugs (terrestrial gastropod mollusc), and snails (Helix pomatia) and puppy dog tails (C. l. familiaris) . In these (along with cat, rabbit, etc.), we treat the common word as the broader topic and describe the scientific term in a scientific article (more or less). – S. Rich (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Human can go more in-depth about how humans are separate from animals, thinking, etc., while Homo sapiens can be treated like just another animal article. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Biological species are considered inherently notable. This article should discuss the biology and the place of Homo sapiens in the tree of life. Human can be left to discuss the anthropological/cultural aspects of the species. --Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop this obscurantism immediately. An article or not, but the title is occupied since the time immemorial (not later than since October 2001 as an article, and as a redirect since 2005), and its deletion is not an option if only because of history keeping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a distinct perspective on a superlatively notable topic. -- Scray (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per criterion 1 of WP:SK: the nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. He knows that the subject is notable. He should have used a merge proposal. Regardless of that, the ambiguity of the definition of "human" makes "Homo sapiens" a better place to describe specific differences of H. sapiens from other hominids. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge content to human evolution and redirect this article to human, which is the already-existing article for the species Homo sapiens. This is an utterly redundant WP:CFORK, though with very little in it that isn't duplication. Articles on a species can be named by either the scientific or common name, so human is appropriately named. -- 202.124.73.8 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and refocus to more biological/taxonomic concepts per above. Ansh666 06:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as a scientific term, with background history of name, and for taxonomy relation to others, such as Homo habilus or Homo erectus and other primates. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to human. While I do see potential scope for a separate article, this article would need to be spun off carefully from the existing articles (human, human evolution), with a clear and agreed upon purpose.  I feel that if there is to be a separate article, it would involve a non-trivial rearrangement of content since the current version of the article under discussion has no content that is not already covered better elsewhere.  For now, the best solution seems to be to redirect to human, and then if and when an editor has the will to undertake the task, to obtain consensus at Talk:Human on what the scope of homo sapiens ought to be, and what content should be moved there.  But AfD is much too blunt an instrument to deal with content matters like these, and in the short term our readers are clearly better served by having homo sapiens redirect to human.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2013 (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.