Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban coyote


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Urban coyote

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There really is no species as "urban coyote". It is the same species as "coyote" (See the infoboxes - both are listed as "C. latrans"). This information can and should be merged into coyote. I don't see this as a separate topic (Posted by User:AndyTheGrump on behalf of IP User:67.183.113.3)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Coyote. This is important information on the species.  If you feel bold and the article is not "owned" you could just go ahead and merge it. BayShrimp (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From the article click on "Category:Urban animals" and you will see that most are the main article on the species. BayShrimp (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought when an AfD is started we are supposed to let it run its course.BayShrimp (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Having completed the AfD process on behalf of the IP, it might not be appropriate to !vote, but I will say that I can see the IP's point of view regarding the issue. As it stands, the existing coyote article has a considerable amount of material on coyote-human interaction, which needs to be read in conjunction with any discussion on urban coyotes. Given the relatively small size of this article, I can't see any particular reason why it shouldn't be merged, keeping all the information in one place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge or just redirect to Coyote, where the topic is already covered at some length, primarily in this section. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The IP's assumption seems to be that that article's content was split from Coyote because it is being treated as separate species, which is totally incorrect. It was split because it's large and well-defined enough to be split in to a sub-article, which we do all the time on Wikipedia. There are many sources that are specifically about coyotes in urban environments, which is why I was able to trim the pretty bloated Coyote article and bring more content. This kind of sub-article for a type is less common as you can see from Category:Urban animals, but that doesn't mean it isn't merited by the reliable source coverage and the need to keep the main article to summary style. It actually isn't that much smaller than another good example of this kind of subarticle, Rats in New York City. Steven Walling &bull; talk   15:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Urban coyote and Coyote may be the same species, but how they interact with humans is entirely different. Academics have treated the subject or urban coyotes as distinct from rural ones. The article is well-referenced. The phenomenon of coyotes living among people will continue to grow as more coyotes live in suburbs and cities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason for the deletion request, the mistaken presence of a taxobox, has already been dealt with by its removal. Therefore, we should thank this editor with the IP address in Seattle for his action which resulted in article improvement already and close this and call it a day and a job well done.
 * The reasons given since then, here above, are not valid: there is a large and quickly growing amount of material specifically about the ecology, biology, behavior of urban coyotes and the problems they do or don't cause, all of which seem to agree that they are different in significant ways, more than enough to make this article potentially too long and detailed to merge into the article Coyote, any more than it would be an improvement to merge the articles war elephant, street dog, pet skunk, sloth moth, house plant, working rat, houseplant, gut flora, or any number of other examples into their parent articles.
 * Furthermore, consider the example of the article Coyote attacks on humans, which says: "In the absence of the harassment of coyotes practiced by rural people, urban coyotes are losing their fear of humans, which is further worsened by people intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes." Note the need for a good blue link in that sentence.  We need to refer to this article in such contexts when discussing related topics; it helps the whole system by allowing us to easily refer to the referent of this article if/when we need/want to in some context. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as a daughter article of Coyote, which is already fairly long. -- 203.171.197.20 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm seeing massive book coverage specifically on urban coyotes. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Summary style. Clearly notable as a subtopic about coyotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject per se, correct split from main article. Well-referenced. -- cyclopia  speak!  20:50, 7 July 2013 (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.