Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo sapiens (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This was never listed at WP:AFD, it seems. I'm still closing it because consensus is clear and there has been an adequate discussion.  Sandstein  15:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

homo sapiens
this should be deleted. we already have the human article. no need for a separate article. we don't have a Canis familiaris article separate from dog or Felis catus article separate from cat. we shouldn't have this either. Voortle (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC) contribs) 07:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - See the hatnote to this article. The taxonomic entity is worthy of its own article.  We probably should have C. familiaris and F. catus.  (We certainly should have C. familiaris since there is controversy about whether it really is C. familiaris or is C. lupus familiaris or is C. familiaris after all.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made C. familiaris into a redirect to dog. Also, the controversy regarding its taxonomy is already covered by the dog article —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually this is a bit borderline, as the article contains nothing that isn't presented in equal or greater detail in either Human or one of the more specialized articles dealing with human evolution and origin. However, it is useful as a summary and hub for H. sapiens as a taxonomic concept. I think this is a special case because the material is so broad.-- Elmidae (talk ·
 * "However, it is useful as a summary and hub for H. sapiens as a taxonomic concept."—that's already covered by the "Human" article, just like everything else in this article. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - At worst this should be merged or redirected to human but certainly not deleted. While we do not have a Felis catus article we do have a redirect.  And since the human article focuses on a particular subspecies of Home sapiens, a full article is likely appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "And since the human article focuses on a particular subspecies of Home sapiens"—it doesn't, it focuses on Homo sapiens. This is what it says at the top of the "Human" article: "This article is about humans as a species [emphasis added]." —MartinZ02 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Merge Redirect to human—there is no reason for this to be a separate article, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted either. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This article violates WP:CFORK, which states: "Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided [emphasis added]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinZ02 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept "human" includes other species and subspecies such as Neanderthals which are extinct. We have other articles about the extinct species and subspecies of humans, and do not merge their content into Human. Accordingly, we should keep this separate article about the taxonomy of the only surviving human species. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Merge to human Keep - I think that this article should be merged with human, as they describe the same thing. - After looking at Emphrase's take, I think I will switch to keep. This is because of the fact that homo sapiens are only one concept of humans. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 00:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think redirect would be a better term, since a merge usually refers to the process of uniting the contents of two articles into one, but this article doesn't contain any information that's not already in the "Human" article. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely should be kept. Per Cullen. -- 05:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeep Anybody searching for Homo sapiens is presumably interested in something besides the topics covered in the human article. There's kind of a mess with various articles dealing with human evolution Homo sapiens sapiens is a redirect to anatomically modern human. It'd be better to have Homo sapiens sapiens point to human. We also have articles on Homo sapiens idaltu, Denisovans, Neanderthals and Red Deer Cave people, all of which are considered subspecies of Homo sapiens by at least some authorities. Are these prehistoric hominins "humans" in the sense of our article on humans, which focuses primarily on currently living humans? Better to keep the Homo sapiens article as a hub to discusss human evolution and archaic populations that contributed to the genetic make-up of modern humans without necessarily being considered "human" themselves. Plantdrew (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - as "homo sapiens" is only one species in the concept of "human." Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 08:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a lot of useful info in the H. sapiens article, and as has been discussed at length on the talk page, "human" means any species in the genus Homo. The species Homo sapiens, which comprises our subspecies of H. s. sapiens, is just one species of many within genus Homo.  We may also note that this page was speedy kept in a 2013 deletion discussion.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  13:31, 5 January 2017 (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.