Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis


 * 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   no consensus. This discussion seems to mirror what I read on the article talk page - a slight preference for deletion that falls short of consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tristis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After much discussion at the article's talk page, it seems that there is a slight majority in favor of deletion. I request that commenters here and the closing admin please read the discussion that's already occurred on talk to avoid redundancy and for some technical background about the subject. Danger (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — Danger (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Danger (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  — Danger (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't appear to be useful as a disambiguation page, and as a list, it's really just a list of names with a partial name match. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't see the use for such a page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the term tristis was always used in conjunction with its preceding genus name, I'd agree with Whpq that this is a partial names match list, and would have about as much inclusion-worthiness as a list of town names ending in "-ton". Why I think it's different is that you often encounter specific epithets in isolation, with the species presumed by the author/speaker to be obvious based on the context. See examples given at Talk:Tristis. I'd argue for inclusion of pages like this one on the basis that it helps people who encounter terms like this in those kinds of situation, but aren't in on the secret of which species is being talked about, to narrow down their search. SP-KP (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. If nothing else, it is a useful disambiguation page of names that include the name "Tristis".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PTM. Deor (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But see also my comments above. This is a partial title match, but also a full match of a term used independently. SP-KP (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of independent usage and remain unconvinced. Deor (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to Britain and talk to a selection of botanists, entomologists or birders. We all do it, trust me. SP-KP (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * . Deor (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. We had several of these at AfD a few years ago (Articles for deletion/Canus, Articles for deletion/Miserabilis, Articles for deletion/Vulgaris), where the consensus was for deletion. My rationale remains the same as that expressed in my !vote and later comment at Articles for deletion/Miserabilis. Deor (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've rephrased the article so that the "partial name match" argument is moot.  See also Robert, Henry, and James.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A specific epithet like this an adjective and is an intrinsic part of a name; it is not comparable with the a name like Robert. The epithet "tristis" is nonsensical to use by itself to refer to a species; it is like referring to New York City as just "New" or Long Island as just "Long". This "article" is still essentially an expanded disambiguation page and "tristis" (or any of the other specific epithets that keep cropping up as new disambig pages) are definitely partial title matches, which is the first thing mentioned in the list of "What not to include" in the Wikipedia Disambiguation guidelines, see WP:DABNOT. I have been unable to find any print sources where the specific epithet "tritis" is used by itself. As an article this would be like a list of towns that have the word "South" as part of their name. It is unencyclopedic. I agree strongly with User: Deor and the examples of previous AfDs he gives are extremely relevant here. Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one would speak about "South", though, and expect other people to know which town they meant - which is why people don't do it. People do however speak about "tristis", or any number of other specific epithets without giving the genus, and do expect that people will know which taxon they're talking about from the context. It might be "wrong" to do this, but people still do it. I don't think I can give you a precise count of the number of conversations I've had with botanists, entomologists, bird people etc. where this has happened, but it must run into the hundreds. In many cases I knew which taxon was being referred to, but in others I had to check. SP-KP (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the reference to WP:DABNOT, is the respondent aware that all of the dab links have been removed and that the WP:PTM argument has been rendered moot? If respondent looks at the MOS:LAYOUT guideline, respondent will see that the "See also" section is for "related articles".  Is anyone positing that binomial names that include the word tristis are not related to the topic tristis?  Perhaps, but this is not something I want to guess.  Regarding respondent's lack of success in finding stand-alone examples of tristis or triste, there are examples in the article.  It didn't take a lot of time for me to find the examples I've reported in the article.  Elliott Coues in particular appears to be a major figure in botanical names, the 1903 book I've referenced went to a fifth edition and is over 1900 pages long.  The preface also gives insight into the stature of this individual.  Page 393 has two examples of the stand-alone usage of tristis.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 31 May 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.