Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puget Trough prairie butterfly


 * 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Puget Trough prairie butterfly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article name does not refer to any species of butterfly. Four butterfly species are mentioned in the article. I have removed three of them to their own articles, the fourth already has an existing article. The section of the article relating to conservation duplicates the many existing articles on conservation. With the three butterfly species removed to their own articles, this article no longer serves any purpose and was rather dubious as to the subject in any event. The butterflies should have been listed in separate articles to begin with. Delete. Safiel (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the article to the title Puget Trough prairie butterflies, since it deals (or dealt) with the status of several unrelated species of prairy butterflies in the Puget Trough. --Lambiam 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you moved information from this article to form three other ones, we can't simply delete this, as we must preserve the article history. It should instead be turned into a redirect, but I have no idea of pointing to what target. Perhaps it should also be renamed to reflect the actual contents rather than the non-existant species. Lady  of  Shalott  00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment here are the three articles I created:
 * Euphydryas editha taylori
 * Icaricia icarioides blackmorei
 * Polites mardon
 * I don't think redirection can be used simply because the Article Title Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a plausible redirect to anything. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After giving it some further thought, I am considering moving this article to Butterfly and moth conservation and deleting the information specific to the four butterflies and then marking the original article name for speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. Reconsidering what I said earlier about duplicating conservation articles, I see there is not much specific to butterfly and moth conservation, so will strike my original comment. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Butterfly and moth conservation. Then, Speedy Delete Puget Trough prairie butterfly as an implausible redirect. Safiel (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a common name therefore no redir is needed. The rest of the article is not easily salvaged and is not suitable for a Butterfly and moth conservation article. If the latter article were to be written it will need more than what is in the article up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Second google hit on the term is this AfD. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I am waffling here. After yet more reconsideration and talking to some of the butterfly folks, I will go back to my original stance of delete. It has been pointed out that the material in the article is neither sufficient quantity or quality to created the proposed new article, with which I have to agree. Final answer. I hope. Safiel (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2011 (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.