Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape flight


 * 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 DELETE and REDIRECT to Mallard. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rape flight
Redundant, should not be a separate article. Delete all material and Redirect to Mallard. No need for merge because (1) info on rape flight is already in Mallard (including, yes, homosexual necrophilia in ducks), (2) info in "Rape flight" article is wrong anyway, I think (despite name, rape flight does not occur when flying), (3) overly informal and speculative. N.B.: article of same name deleted Oct 31 by admin ABCD. Maybe this makes it a speedy? I'm too n00b to know, or to find earlier discussion. Herostratus 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a tough one for me. It's a real term, and an interesting term, and could perceivably be sufficiently interesting to warrant an article in its own right.  It is clear that the term could be greatly expanded beyond the sub stub that exists within the mallard article, and indeed in mallard could be a link saying "Main article: rape flight".  There is certainly enough information about this phenomenon, which is unique to the mallard ducks that it could fill an entire article.  I suppose it is a bit like the practice of praying mantises, where the female bits and eats the head off the male during mating.  It is sufficiently notable and interesting to warrant its own article.  After all, while I personally couldn't care less about mallard ducks, I could be interested in learning about rape flight.  I am sure that others feel the same. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the speedy question, an article is able to be nominated for speedy deletion if the content is basically the same as it was when deleted. As all other articles were deleted for being nonsense, whilst this one is an obvious fair attempt at creating a legitimate article, it does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The information in Mallard isn't a substub - that normally refers to a one- or two-sentence article, not a two-paragraph section with citations. And there's no point keeping the present article, which - while probably a good-faith attempt to write an article - is simply wrong, and does not describe the phenomenon in question.  In the circumstances, the correct thing to do is to redirect this to Mallard for now: people interested in rape flight as a phenomenon in itself will thus find the section discussing it there, and if, in the future, someone who knows a lot about the subject wishes to expand it to the point that it requires an article of its own - well, then they can de-merge it, can't they? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I confused anyone. The information about rape flight on Mallard is a sub stub.  It says virtually nothing about it.  Mallard as an article is a good article.  I am sorry if that was misunderstood. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, recreate as a protected redirect to Mallard per the nominator. I'm sure that others feel the same. -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. As explained, I think at worst this needs to be a temporary delete.  If it is protected, then that is wholly the wrong way to go about it.  This is a legitimate subject that is worthy of its own article, without question. It is just whether someone else can write it.  Protecting it would disrupt Wikipedia. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - all content is already in Mallard JoJan 16:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect (no need to merge) per nom. Bikeable 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to merge, per brenneman. Stifle 15:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, which doesn't preclude a merge or redirect. --SPUI (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like hoax.  Grue   15:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete yes the name intrigued me enough to read it but is this encyclopedic? N-O. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect (requires no delete); this is clearly a genuine subject as currently written, but since it is specific to the Mallard and is already mentioned in the Mallard article it seems to me pointless to have a fork. However, there is just about enough currency of the term to make a redirect worthwhile. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:18, 13 December 2005 (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.