Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peppered moth references

Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 30 to May 7 2004, consensus was to keep and move to Talk:Peppered moth/references. Discussion:

Huh? RickK 23:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These all seem to be concerned with the peppered moth's reaction to environmental stimuli (changing its colour to match sooty trees, etc). However, the page itself does nothing to actually suggest this. Merge with peppered moth if at all. Rhymeless 02:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Looking at talk and history, this article was just split out of peppered moth because of size issues. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Cut the list of refs back to the ones that are cited in the peppered moth article and merge it back in. <- done; see below. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC) The list is padded with a lot of items that aren't referenced in the article. Ordinarily refs should go in the article. Peppered moth is just an ordinary article. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to second RickK's reaction, "Huh?" Many of the articles related to the Peppered Moth look to be a huge mess right now. And what is with Template:Pepperedmoth? This looks extremely nonstandard. Is this where Wikipedia is headed with these custom messages? Ickk! older &ne; wiser 18:14, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep the whole list. Or merge into Talk:Peppered moth. Probably should be folded back into the Peppered moth article, but for now, keep. Biston betularia is the focus of a very interesting controversy in which the creationists actually have something sensible to say. (Did I actually say that? Oh, wash my mouth out with soap.) Basically it is literally the textbook example of, supposedly, Darwinian evolution in action. Unfortunately, it seems to be a little dodgy or questionable or, at least, not quite so simple as the 1960s Scientific American articles on "industrial melanism" made it out to be. And the orthodox evolutionist and textbook writers were a little too quick to adopt it uncritically, laying them open to some valid complaints from the creationists. I have no idea how it will all sort out, but I think lots of good references are a very good thing to have handy. Dpbsmith 01:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have put back into peppered moth those items from peppered moth references which are referenced in peppered moth; there were many items not referenced. At this point, I recommend moving peppered moth references to talk:peppered moth/references or something; it's not an article. -- I agree the whole article needs a lot of work, and the use of MediaWiki seems odd, but that's a topic for another day. See also my comments at talk:peppered moth. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Right. I originally wrote most of the article, and being a new Wikipedia user made a complete Dog's breakfast of it. I admit it. However, I'm trying to sort it out. There is a lot of interesting information there, so while its ultimate deletion is possible, please hang on for a little while! Can I put the structure in place and then do it. I have collected and read about 150 papers on this subject. I think the blue box works very well at bringing the subject together. My ultimate aim in this was to (oh and btw, the creationist arguments are as usual, nearly all nonsense. And I'll explain why... ).

The original plan was to have a peppered moth references style link for each reference, so if they are mentioned a couple of times, this should work out. I probably should have discussed this before though, sorry. Am presently migrating out the pages, so please hang on for a while. 81.153.141.70 11:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I understand better what the plan is here. I don't think using # -style wikilinks is a good idea; see my comments at talk:peppered moth about that. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and play page merge/split/cleanup games as necessary. - Fennec 15:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion