Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripoding


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tripoding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Tripoding" appears to be a non-notable neologism. The article references a bunch of sources which are either not significantly reliable or do not mention this term. Wictionary already has an article about this word, I'd suggest if this is a valid biological term that definition could be expanded. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term is a WP:NEO, but the phenomenon is real. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete GScholar's 149 hits shows that this is spurious. Book hits are better but are entirely for other sense of the word. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not spurious; the phenomenon is real. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The term used here may be a WP:NEO, but the phenomenon is real enough. See the reliable book references I have added to the article (and there are plenty more out there, if you search for "legs" "tail" and "tripod"). The monkey and squirrel examples seemed misplaced, and I have removed them (the tail is probably not being used as a support here). Possibly an article title change may be appropriate, but that is not an issue for AfD. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not here to give names to phenomena. If it doesn't have an established name, we won't have an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that the topic is spurious has been shown to be false, now you're inventing Wikipedia policies? WP:GNG does not include the policy you're suggesting. If you don't like the article title, the appropriate action is a move request, not an AfD. And in any case, there is an established name, namely "tripod stance." -- 101.119.14.234 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All we need is a one or two reliable sources that show this is a term used by biologists in this sense. In the absence of these sources, we'd be guilty of publishing original research which is one of the cardinal sins of Wikipedia editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. AfD is about whether the subject of the article is notable. The subject in this case is animals adopting a tripod stance using two legs and a tail. The sources in the article show that the subject is discussed by biologists and is notable per WP:GNG. Reporting these facts is not remotely original research, and WP:GNG does not require significant coverage of the article title -- only of the topic. If you don't like the article title (and I'm not wild about it myself), the appropriate action would have been a move request, not an AfD (the literature would certainly support a title like "tripod stance"). -- 101.119.14.234 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The IP editor can sigh all he wants, but it's not going to change the fact that this fails WP:NEO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm now moving for speedy keep based on the fact that no policy-based arguments for deletion have been advanced; merely (valid) arguments to change the title. If you look at WP:NEO, the applicable section says "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." That's not an argument to delete, but an argument to rename the article to avoid WP:NEO. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Creator's comments - strong keep As the creator of this page, I felt there were enough occurrences in Wikipedia of the term "tripoding" for this behaviour to deserve its own page.  I really can not understand how anyone can deny this behaviour occurs given the images I placed on the original article - are photos not evidence as much as words?  (And I favour replacement of some of these photos.)  I did not take any of the photos myself and I did not refer to any of my own published research on ethology, therefore this article can not be original research.  On reflection, I agree the title might not be the best - I was simply using the term that has been used previously by editors on Wikipedia to assist searches - I would favour the move to Tripod stance.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Perhaps retitling is in order, but that's a different discussion for after this one. Either way, this is a real thing and not a new concept or neologism.   I did a search for "tripod stance", https://www.google.com/#q=tripod+stance+tail+-dinosaur and clearly the tripod stance has significant coverage - and more if you include all the "T-Rex didn't actually have a tripod stance" ones!   Montanabw (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Creator's comments This is the first of 40+ articles I have created that has been nominated for deletion, so AfD is a new process to me. How/when is it decided that the page is deleted or kept?  I (and presumably other editors) feel unwilling to do any more work on the page unless its future is secure.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is likely that the discussion will go on for a while and then someone will look at all the comments and decide what are the most convincing facets. Then that person will declare the article kept or closed and put a closing box around the discussion saying that the discussion has ended. The outcome is not necessarily democratic, but depends on what is most convincing. I hope that the article is kept, so may I suggest that you continue to improve the article and not waste too much time here. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. To me this looks notable and also it seems to me to be interesting and well sourced. The title of the article could be made more precise, perhaps by using a phrase rather than one word, so I think the heading could be a topic for the talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The primary rationale for deletion seems to be WP:NEO, but this fails to address the issue of whether the tripod stance is a notable kind of animal behavior.  If no sources use the exact term "tripoding", then the article should be renamed to something purely descriptive, per the last paragraph of the WP:NEO policy itself.  A valid reason for deletion must address the issue of whether this is a notable phenomenon in biology, not whether the term itself is superficially notable.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability For those considering whether the subject matter of this page is notable, it may be worth realising that pages exist on Standing, Lying, Sitting and many other postures/positions - presumably these were considered sufficiently notable.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The existence of related articles does not imply that this article is notable. One relevant datum is whether this has been independently studied by reliable sources on animal behavior.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermmm...don't the 16 reliable references show that the behaviour HAS been studied independently and on multiple occasions? I'm not even sure multiple studies are a criterion - what about when a new species is discovered and there is only one (reliable) report on the species.  Do we have to wait until there are multiple reports on the species before it can appear on Wikipedia?  With regards to notability, in my opinion (and notability can only be opinion), standing by a bipedal animal is considerably less notable than a quadruped animal shifting to a bipedal position and supporting itself with its tail.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at those sources to see what is actually said there. I was merely commenting as a point of order for those arguing deletion based (apparently) on the title alone.  That's not grounds for deletion, and absent some more substantial reason for deletion, the article will default to keep.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep and rename per article creator's suggestion for "tripod stance."  Montanabw (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename (article creator) __DrChrissy (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Tripod stance (is moving articles while at AfD really helpful?). The phrase "tripod stance" gets 165 hits on Scholar, which show that the phrase is commonly used both in animal locomotion and in robotics. It's definitely notable. The article is interesting, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a thing, mentioned in journals, textbooks and elsewhere, as "tripodding", "tripodal stance", "tripod stance" or simply "resting on its two hind legs and tail" etc. An encyclopedia article would be useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 3 January 2014 (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.