Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soft mouth


 * 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. Consensus is to keep the material as the subject is notable, but no prejudice against further discussion of a possible merge. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Soft mouth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relies on a single source and looking online there doesn't seem to have extensive coverage of the behavior.

In addition, the entire article is unsourced except a single line and can be consider original research Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Look ye among the books, and ye shall find: ,, for starters. It pops up in any number of hunting dog guides. Admittedly it helps to know that it is a thing before searching, but copious sources exist (and should be added to the article). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you think it should merge back in to Bite inhibition as User:Kingofaces43 suggested? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , how is that a keep reason?!?


 * I'm not trying to bite newbies! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he's being punny :p Still, actual relevant Keep reasons from Andrew D. are a common desideratum and more common absence. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Elmidae's !vote. Wiki-notability is about whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be included in the article as it presently stands. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elmidae and XOR. Notable behavior, even if it isn't properly here per se. Utopes (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The behavior has decent discussion in sources, so it's fair for notability, though I wouldn't have a preference if this was merged back into Bite inhibition either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's better if it's merged back in. I don't see why it was split out. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed that it had been split out. I'll take a look at the sources a bit more and the current structure of the article, but I could be convinced to just merge it back instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference would be for keeping it as a separate article. It's technically a form of bite inhibition, but quite removed from the curbing-of-aggression phenomenon that's discussed there - it's a working dog skill, and more specifically a hunting term of art. I would also replace the parenthetical link in the first sentence of Bite inhibition with a "For..." hatnote. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the more I look at it, the more I really have no preference between keep and merge. Functionally, I'd prefer in most cases that a true split is done within the context of the parent article first to see if the full content really justifies it. The topic is nearly redudant with the parent article, but it's slightly different in some aspects. Not enough for me to go full keep anymore as a merge wouldn't really hurt anything here, but it's also a bare minimum where you can say notability is met, but whether it's redundant with an existing article is up in the air. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.