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 circulatory system. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double circulatory system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · circulatory system)

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

• redirect I agree with Tom (LT) that in it's current form, Double circulatory system should be redirected to Circulatory system. This article remained unreferenced since it got tagged as unreferenced in 2009, and so is probably going to remain unreferenced much longer. I found some google books that mention the double circulatory system but who knows which part of which book each piece of information in the article is in or if it's even in any. It probably has to be rewritten entirely to only include the information that sources can be found for and write that information in a clear way, and then it will no longer be worthy of deletion. Maybe a biology expert could easily find sources for Double circulatory system. Maybe we want track down some of the main contributors of Double circulatory system from its history and find out from them where they read the information. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article's history and it looks like nobody made a huge contribution to the article; each person contributed a very small bit to the article so I'm not sure which contributors I should be notifying of the article's nomination of deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• transclude I changed my mind. It should probably be transwikied to Wikimedia Incubator to become encyclopedic as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Incubation. Is there somebody experienced enough in Wikimedia Incubator to decide wether they think that's even the best idea, let alone better than moving to Wikipedia's Draft namespace. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect: There is no "double circulatory system" as a distinct topic from circulatory system. This simply prepends a descriptive adjective, so is completely redundant. (I am not an "expert" in biology - got a 2 at O level - but this appears obvious.) Imaginatorium (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Some of the information from Double circulatory system is probably salvageable and should be added to Circulatory system. I'm quite sure there are lots of reliable sources for it each of which only has a small bit of information in the article, and all of them are very hard to find. It is however quite likely that no source has a lot of information in the article which would explain why it's so hard to find enough sources. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect when this article is stripped of irrelevant or uncited information there is so little left that it would be better just to redirect to Circulatory system#Other animals for the benefit of readers. I have also let WikiProject Animal Anatomy know about this discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There's no references for any of this information, so I think merging would not improve the circulatory system article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure all those people who contributed to adding information to the article got the information from somewhere. It doesn't appear to be the type of information they could have figured out from their own original research. I even saw a brief mention of the double circulatory system in the book at http://www.nelson.com/nelson/school/secondary/science/0176121382/default.html that did a lot of explaining of how it evolved back then when I was in high school, so maybe that source could be cited and its information about the double circulatory system added to Circulatory system. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge I added some information in and referenced it. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbombchu there is really no need for you to !vote multiple times when you are the one who originally nominated the article for deletion. Your comments are welcome as your views on the article evolve, but there's no need to begin every comment with a bolded recommendation. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each time I made another vote, I changed my mind so I consider my previous votes not to count. I made my most recent vote after the article situation changed, which gave a good reason to form an opinion in the new situation. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike out your previous votes like this by typing <s>like this</s>~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment According to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Unsourced Wikipedia articles undergoing deletion, you're more likely to find reliable sources if you search, "double circulation." Also, from what Dr. Nikhil P. Patil wrote at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Double circulatory system, I'm starting to think maybe reliable sources can be found and that some of the information in Double circulatory system might qualify as common knowledge which is verifiable by asking people and doesn't need citing. Why don't we follow Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and decide whether we think deleting the information in Double circulatory system without merging would satisfy the original purpose of no original research which is probably verifiability and truth? In fact, I already found one source that I'm pretty sure is reliable. Maybe that book's bibliography has more reliable sources about the double circulatory system. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin there seems to be a keep !vote on the talk page. See [1]. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:39, 24 August 2015 (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.