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 Baeckea. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baeckea species (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)

Now that the number of Baeckea species has reduced from 75 to about 30 (Australian Plant Census and Plants of the World Online), I have included the species list in the Baeckea article, making the "List" article redundant. Gderrin (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, the list is now redundant. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - whether the list should be upmerged to the Baeckea article is not is an editorial question, not one for AfD. This article meets the requirements for a stand-alone list article in Wikipedia. In addition, I'm not sure what the copyright situation would be if the list was copied from this page to the parent article (as it seems to have been). While you could argue that a list isn't copyrightable, it seems iffy to me to copy and then delete. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This is a merge discussion, no need for a deletion discussion. You could've also just replaced it with a redirect if no one objected. This article was created in 2008. But somehow things that were part of this species before have been removed [1], reclassified is something else I suppose. Some places list more names [2] than others. I have no idea how this works though so won't comment on it. Just put in a redirect and if anyone protest, then start a proper merge discussion. AFD is not meant for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect A discussion was not needed here. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:CHEAP, do not keep. (It rhymed.) Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There's no reason to have a stand-alone page listing all of the 30 species in a genus (even with 75 species, it's not unreasonable to list them all in the article about the genus). But there's also no reason to actually delete a long-standing title; redirecting is appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. desmay (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (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.