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 keep. strong consensus that the subject is not a duplicate and that the species and a genus are different (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian leaf turtle[edit]

Asian leaf turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

bringing this to afd, this is a repeat article. article was duplicated with Cyclemys. tried to csd yet a circle jerk is apparently needed to get rid of a duplicate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? This is what the fuck I'm talking about what does the Asian Leaf Turtle cover that the Cyclemes doesn't. Ther are repeats at a bare minimum it could be redirected but if you sit and actually read the article they are duplicates with one actually being better written. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asian leaf turtle is the common name for one particular species - Cyclemys dentata. But that common name is also applied to their "holding group" if you may (I'm assuming you don't have any experience at all with taxonomy), the genus Cyclemys. Which in turn includes six other species, each of which is very distinct from Cyclemys dentata.
This is the reason why biologists use scientific names to identify species. Because common names are unstable, often applied arbitrarily, and are more or less quite useless in identifying the exact organism, much less their relationships with other organisms.
While we do redirect species pages to genus pages when a particular genus contains only one species (a monotypic genus), and we also redirect species pages to genus pages when very little is known about their member species (or else their member species share most of the same characteristics), this is very seldom true in higher animals. And this is certainly not true in Cyclemys dentata. If you examine the article I expanded on Cyclemys more closely you will realize that I only covered C. dentata very briefly. The article is devoted to the entire genus, not Cyclemys dentata alone. Admittedly C. dentata is little more than a stub at the moment, not for want of actual material, but simply because no one has expanded it yet. There are plenty more information that can be placed on C. dentata that can not be placed on the genus page Cyclemys.
It is not a duplicate. Stop repeating that. Saying Cyclemys dentata is a duplicate of Cyclemys is like asserting that the species Homo sapiens should redirect to the genus Homo. If you're going to start speedying biological articles, I suggest you learn a bit more biology first.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't introduCe any specific or new information it's a duplicate and not worthy of a stand alone article. What does it bring to the table that Ceclemys doesn't? The answer is nothing Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understand where you are coming from now. We have here a main topic(Cyclemys) with seven subtopics. You divide them up in this way for ease of access and ease of understanding. You could put them all in one article and create a bigger main topic. We don't do that normally because it does not make logical sense, navigational sense or enable ease of search but instead you end up having to explicitly state and reorganise the information presented. This results firstly in information being condensed into an infobox which it's not designed to show(in this case conservation status for each of the subtopics, maps etc.), and then itemised section for each uniqueness of the subtopics. The structure is commonly know as a list. I have encountered this suggestion once before in an AFD where the nominator wanted to merge a song into an album article. You could copy all the information for each song into the corresponding album it came from. But it would make a confusing article. A search for a song would not work well and the structure of the article would be like a list. I'm against merging into a main article when there is a logic seperation in naming and identity. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as someone sees the logic behind my actions, agreement is not always nec. but I at least feel a small amount of vindication that I'm not the only one that has felt this way. If the article is not merged or deleted as seems likely the wording in the intro can be improved to be more clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2011 (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.
More