From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|
:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#be33ff;”>Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#ff33da;”>Mississippi</span>]] 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|List of mammoth specimens]]</noinclude></div> |
:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#be33ff;”>Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#ff33da;”>Mississippi</span>]] 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|List of mammoth specimens]]</noinclude></div> |
||
|
* Like {{u|Katzrockso}} above, I can’t see that this is an AfD matter. It’s completely reasonable to debate the inclusion criteria of a list of mammoth specimens, but I can’t see an argument that ”any” article titled “List of mammoth specimens” would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. Accordingly, the right outcome here is ”’keep”’ with a followup discussion on the article’s talk page. ”[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style=”color:#7F007F”>UndercoverClassicist</b>]]” <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC) |
* Like {{u|Katzrockso}} above, I can’t see that this is an AfD matter. It’s completely reasonable to debate the inclusion criteria of a list of mammoth specimens, but I can’t see an argument that ”any” article titled “List of mammoth specimens” would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. Accordingly, the right outcome here is ”’keep”’ with a followup discussion on the article’s talk page. ”[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style=”color:#7F007F”>UndercoverClassicist</b>]]” <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
*:I concur with ”’keep”’ing the article and starting a discussion at the talk page. Per [[WP:WRONGFORUM]], perhaps this should be procedurally closed to start a discussion on the talk page. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 00:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:41, 8 December 2025
- List of mammoth specimens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SALAT. There is no clear criteria of what a specimen being notable in their history or preservation
is. I could see a list with a clearly defined scope of only permafrost preserved specimens being notable, but that’s a fundamentally different article to the current scope of this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
-
- Note that the list you are suggesting (in your second sentence) already exists: List of Ice Age species preserved as permafrost mummies. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why not just stick to the usual “notable” scope – those that are deemed notable enough to have a separate article? I.e., blue-linked entries only. The current content scope does not strike me as troublesome. —Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why was this brought to AfD? This is a content issue that is properly discussed at the talk page of the article and absent commentary, should be listed at WP:RFC. Katzrockso (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Like Katzrockso above, I can’t see that this is an AfD matter. It’s completely reasonable to debate the inclusion criteria of a list of mammoth specimens, but I can’t see an argument that any article titled “List of mammoth specimens” would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. Accordingly, the right outcome here is keep with a followup discussion on the article’s talk page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I concur with keeping the article and starting a discussion at the talk page. Per WP:WRONGFORUM, perhaps this should be procedurally closed to start a discussion on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
