Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanoreception in star-nosed mole

Mechanoreception in star-nosed mole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Student essay that would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. The lede needs a complete rewrite, all the images are broken, many of the links are broken and/or repetitive, rewrite for tone and plain english, etc. Almost all of the content is sourced to the work of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into
  WP:GNG requirement that there be demonstrated interest from multiple sources over a period of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Selective merge into Star-nosed mole. The topic is certainly notable (see this GS search, which finds several non-Catania articles), and there is a lot of good stuff in this article. However, given the very serious article problems, it's best to pare this article back considerably, and the result would fit best (at least for now) as part of Star-nosed mole. -- 101.119.15.226 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not homework, and editors cannot keep up with the number of merges that would be needed to result in salvaging one or two sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per 101.119.15.226. The topic is notable but there's no reason to break it out from the parent article yet. Agree with others above that the article has multiple issues, but those are not valid
  reasons to delete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Smerge as suggested. Much of the information is encyclopedic, and there are good sources. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow-up comment, the "smerge" would be fine with me, as I previously indicated, but I want to speak to the arguments that the topic is notable. There is sourcing, and the content, if properly written, is encyclopedic, but the case is very weak that there is such a preponderance of sourcing separate from the animal species that there would be justification for a standalone page, separate from our page about the species. It's like having a page about the Mouse tail: there certainly is information about that organ, but there is no reason to have a separate page about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the consensus is to smerge in this case; but certainly if we had enough good material, the organ could be spun out as a separate article again. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Star-nosed mole. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 19 December 2013 (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.