Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual communication of butterflies


 * 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 Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. (non-admin closure) sst✈  05:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Visual communication of butterflies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the salvageable content here would fit into Lepidoptera, Animal communication or other articles although they are already covered to some extent. Shyamal (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above; what little extra material there is in here could go into Lepidoptera, but even then it would require some suitable sourcing first - the actual non-duplicated material appears to be original research. Currently not worth an article.-- Elmidae  (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ultraviolet communication in butterflies, where it is better discussed. Searching for ultraviolet butterflies gets over 8,000 hits in GScholar and the first page of hits shows that ultraviolet coloring as a means of communication and selection has many reliable sources. Hence there are in principle plenty of RS upon which to build and article on this topic. But this article is a poorly referenced stub and a better discussion of one type of visual communication is at Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. While I agree that Lepidoptera should be a good target, in practice visual communication is discussed there in one short paragraph with one supposed reference that doesn't discuss visual communication--in short, worse than the current article. I think readers would be better served by being redirected to Ultraviolet communication in butterflies. --Mark viking (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Forsooth, 'tis well reasoned.-- Elmidae  (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2016 (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.