Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characteristics of common wasps and bees

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. A transwiki to Wikibooks is an option to discuss/consider. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of common wasps and bees

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is not encypclopedic; it reads more like an instruction manual or identification key. See WP:NOTAMANUAL. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was previously nominated for deletion (by me, as it turned out). The decision at that time was a clear keep. Unfortunately, I've been unable to recover a copy of that discussion since it predated the current practice of archiving AfD debates. Rossami (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, it's entirely encyclopedic. Its also well written, useful and factual information, ideal for WP. Source are decent as well. scope_creep (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how you can say it's well written. There doesn't seem to be anything that could count as writing of any kind, let alone good writing. After that first introductory sentence, there's nothing but noun phrases. You must also be mistaken about the sources. There are lots of footnotes, but none of them is a cited source. Rather, they are further unsourced assertions. I think I agree with Ninjatacoshell; there is so much wrong with this article that it may be best to delete it. There is no definition of "common" (where I live, for instance, the bald-faced hornet is not common) so the scope is inevitably unclear. The article doesn't even function as a means of identification, and if it did, it would belong on Wikibooks, not here. The sourcing could perhaps be solved (an early edit summary claimed that "Every assertion in th paragraph is cited in the parent articles Honey bee or Africanized honey bee." – I haven't checked if that's true), but the fundamental problem would still remain that this is not an encyclopaedic topic. Features that distinguish a species from others in its area, and from its close relatives belong in the article on that species, not cobbled together into an awkward, oddly selective list. --Stemonitis (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it need a bundle of writing. It's an aggregate article, aesthetically pleasing, and succinct. Doesn't need much more. scope_creep (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the obvious hard work put into this article, it seems to fail as an encyclopedia article in too many ways. all the reasons given above apply. i do somewhat agree that this doesnt need to have sentences, and its short comments are appropriate for the form, but thats trivial compared to the big issue that this is not an encyclopedia article, but a field guide. the unverified notes, the sting levels, the video links, the assumption that these are common forms worldwide, the lack of references, the likelihood that the individual articles pointed to dont include this info (esp. the sting levels, which may not be universally recognized) all make this a "hornets nest" of issues. if someone thinks they can rescue this, maybe we could userfy it for them. im not sure how they would, and im not sure anyone would understand how complex a task it would be to get a good result.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and per above. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Transwiki to Wikibooks, probably a subpage of Wikibooks:Entomology/Common insects. It seems to fit their mandate perfectly. I'll tag it for copying, but if I've made an error, feel free to revert (or improve). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC) (Keep added September 1)[reply]
Keep and Transwiki to Wikibooks, agree with Quiddity. Widefox (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, keep as a comparison article - there are many examples of such. I added comparison category. Widefox (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a table aggregating encyclopedic information. Many similar comparison tables exist in Wikipedia and are useful to our readers. (See Comparison of operating systems for a single example.) This comparison table format which has proven useful to our readers. This page is moderately linked internally and is well-linked externally.
The information on the page is clearly sourced on the respective pages about each insect. The subset of information that's unsourced is, of course, eligible for removal but that does not require AfD to resolve. As a side note, we had a lengthy debate on Talk a few years ago about the 'sting levels'. I shared the skepticism expressed above but the consensus at the time was to leave it in. If the consensus has changed, be bold and take it out. That doesn't require deletion to remediate.
While the scope of the page is appropriate to debate (that is, whether bald-faced hornets are "common"), again, that debate is appropriate to hold on the article's Talk page, not in an AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' It's an informative and very well illustrated article. What distinguishes information solely appropriate to a field guide from information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? There is no objective way of judging such a separation of material. If an opinion exists that an article needs a lot of work, that opinion should not lead to deletion of the article, otherwise there would be no stubs. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.