Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rostrata


 * 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   '''The result is that there is no consensus to delete Rostrata, but I will set about deleting the remaining article per the speedy deletion criterion due to the good faith request by the author. I would like to applaud participants in this discussion for helping the creator of these articles to understand the concerns and come to an amenable solution'''. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rostrata

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

per WP:DAB, specifically Disambiguation, "Rostrata" (or the others) is not a natural title for any of the articles listed in these dab page. Further, a species will never be referred to without its genus; no one will ever come searching for just the species epithet, such as "rostrata", to find any article on these dab pages. Doesn't seem useful. Rkitko (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) ETA: After the editor's considerable effort on Rostrata, I still believe the fundamental purpose of these entries, whether tagged with dab or not, is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It currently stands as a dictionary definition and them some expanded usages. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is under discussion right now, but the sentiment remains. I applaud the work Hebrides has done to Rostrata and I of course don't expect a fully formed article overnight from a disambiguation page. The problem identified here, however, is that I don't believe an encyclopedia article can be made of this term; it cannot be anything more than a dictionary definition and usage guide, which belongs on Wiktionary. I hope that helps clarify the rationale for the one modified article in this nomination. --Rkitko (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – it seems like a bunch of trivial intersections from a lay-pesron's perspective, but I will abstain from any judgment on the article and let those more versed in taxidermy to determine. MuZemike 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep From a layman's perspective it seems perfectly useful. It's hard to remember latin names. What if you can only remember a species name? - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't believe these "articles" fit in anywhere with our criteria for inclusion. They're not set indices, nor are they disambiguation pages, and they aren't cohesive stubs or lists. I don't know of any encyclopedia that indexes its articles by the species epithet. --Rkitko (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This should be a category. I don't know enough about the topic to know if this could be salvaged as a "List of rostrata" article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I've seen enough disambiguations to know that this is NOT one. None of the targets are known as "Rostrata". It could possibly be an index, but I'm not sure. Tavix (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep after author made the Rostrata article encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I created them. I tagged them in error - sorry. I agree they are not disambiguation pages. I've removed the tag.  Hebrides (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are not disambiguation pages, what exactly are they? Would it be a list, an index, a category (of sorts)? Or possibly something else...? Tavix (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are lists, maybe renaming to "List of xxxxx" would be more appropriate, possibly with some tabulation and images?. I don't want to do anything without knowing what their intended purpose is, but if you tell us, I'm sure Rkitko would withdraw the nomination in good faith to allow us time to improve the articles, then renominate at a later date if he still feels they are inappropriate? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem to that I see is that they are species in which the only thing in common is their name. For example: in the Rostrata "list", about half of them are plants, there are a few fishes, a wasp, a toad, a frog, and a snail. I really can't see this becoming a usable list. Tavix (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes, they are not disambiguation pages, and they're not lists, since the items in the 'lists' are not named by the title of the article (the list of death metal bands consists of death metal bands). Therefore, delete, since I can't fathom what other purpose this enumeration (to stay on the safe side) might serve. Drmies (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't really see any purpose. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  13:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements. I strongly suggest keeping all now in good faith, I believe this editor has adequately shown enough initiative to eventually bring all of these articles up to standard, it would be unfair of us to expect it overnight. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly unlikely as a search term, and doesn't serve any other purpose that I can see. Makes no sense taxonomically. At best, this seems like a trivia list. Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from page creator: I've now had time to work on the first of these articles (Rostrata) to start to assemble the material it should contain. Please take a look and let me know whether you still think it should be deleted. There is still a lot more work to be done. Maybe I should have got these pages ready in a sandbox before publishing them, but I had no idea that they would be nominated for deletion so rapidly. I only started the pages two days ago, and the process is quite time consuming. They belong in the Category:Latin adjectives in current use - I've put links to Wiktionary on several of the pages, but Wiktionary doesn't include the level of detail that can go into a Wikipedia article. I'm aware that your comments above relate to the initial page skeletons (Latin adjective + brief meaning + quick trawl of wikipedia for current usage), so maybe we could now discuss Rostrata and see if your comments are any different. I'll postpone work on the others until I know whether they are all going to be deleted. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's definitely an improvement and seems more like an article on the Latin word, but I'm still wary of it as a cohesive article. It seems like a wiktionary definition and then some usages, none of which are known independently of other words as "rostrata". It would seem more prudent to merge the info under "columna rostrata" to victory column (and redirect from Columna rostrata) and copy-to-wiktionary "corona rostrata". The species list species list still doesn't make sense to me. --Rkitko (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: thanks for your feedback. On reflection, I agree that the long list of species is not useful, so I've worked on that, removing the majority of entries, and leaving only those that have a demonstrable bearing on the current usage and meaning of the word rostrata. I do, however, consider that the article has an integrity of its own, so rather than splitting the content as you suggested, I've endeavoured to rework it to make its coherence more apparent. Here is what I suggest:
 * that we keep the Rostrata article for the moment, to give more time for me and others to work on it
 * that you delete all the other articles in the list above - I've copied these to my sandbox, and I agree that each of them needs a lot more work before it's ready to go 'live' in WP. I don't know when I'll have time to do them, as life is often quite busy. So this seems the best way forward.
 * that you also delete the redirects to the other articles (e.g. Elongatus and Elongatum redirect to Elongata, etc).
 * I hope this suggestion meets with your approval, and I'm sorry to have taken your time by publishing articles before they were ready. Best regards - Hebrides (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate the work you've done to it and I understand the lack of time and other commitments. I waited to respond to see what others had to say. I've edited the rationale above to consider the improvements you've made to Rostrata. If you haven't before, have a read through WP:NOTDICTIONARY when you've got a moment. I'm just not sure how this article could progress beyond a dictionary definition/usage guide. Having looked for references for Rostrata, were you able to identify any way this article could move toward the goals of Wikipedia rather than those of Wiktionary? --Rkitko (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like what you did to the Rostrata article. It actually looks encyclopedic and I could see some actual use to it. I went ahead and changed my vote above and I'm rooting on you to get the rest done. Tavix (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found Rudis while looking for rudis: latin, as per the article definition but also note Lewis and Short at Perseus online - (but not their elementary dict) and the second meaning "a staff", whence rudis (a referee) and other transfered senses. Fortunately, these form a cluster which link to Gladiator. In other words, the use of this header requires further disambiguation.  I can't help feeling that's going to give someone (probably Hebrides) a headache, but if the Rostrata article's anything to go by, it should be worthwhile. Good luck with it. As to worrying about half-prepared articles... just try the random article button. Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still delete. This is a prose dictionary entry. Hesperian 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikitionary Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think these are quite useful pages (I know the objections above) and can act as somewhat enhanced disambiguation pages/mini-articles. Valley2 city ‽ 08:05, 2 April 2009 (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.