Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicariance


 * 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 redirect to Allopatric speciation. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Vicariance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have struggled to decide whether to nominate this for deletion, as it is a frequent word in the scientific literature about speciation and biogeography. My concern is that, in contemporary literature, it is used interchangeably with allopatric speciation. Biogeographers use the term vicariance, while evolutionary biologists use the term allopatric. The allopatric article gives a full description of vicariance as it is vital define allopatric separation, the vicariance article; however, covers very little. It is under-referenced and contains a few contradictory statements. It seems largely irrelevant and should probably be deleted and turned into a redirect to allopatric speciation.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect Agree with nominator; this appears to be a partial content fork of allopatric speciation, which clearly lays out the usage commonalities and differences between the two terms and covers all facets of the concept in considerably greater depth. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that, if you look at the redirects to allopatric speciation, it has the terms Vicariance theory, Vicariant, Vicariant event, Vicariant specation, Vicariant speciation. This is basically a testament to the fact that Vicariance is a content fork.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  07:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect - the obvious conclusion. BTW we don't even need to come here to AfD for an uncontentious redirect like this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that. So can I just create it? Does the discussion need to "close"?  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  21:54, 21 September 2017 (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.