North-eastern black rhinoceros (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)

The page is lacking a lot of information on the subspecies, such as taxonomy, behaviour, and reasons for extinction, and both sources are either low quality or lead to dead websites. The page for the nominate species already lists it under the list of subspecies section as well. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2025 (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/2025 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In general, articles about extinct species should be kept especially if the extinction was a result of human activity. However, the photo should be replaced to show white people hunting the animals. As far as sourcing, I think this could be improved. Coresly (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every single extinct species has a page. For example, the Chobe black rhinoceros (D. b chobiensis) and the Moroccan Arabian bustard (A. a. lynsei), In terms of sourcing, there is not much in terms of online sources besides that recently extinct animal database, which is also lacking. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While we do tend to keep articles on extinct species in extant genera (see recent clarification at Wikiproject:Paleo, as I myself wasn't too clear on that), we rarely have articles for even living subspecies - they are generally treated at the species page. In this case, the listing at Black rhinoceros seems entirely sufficient. Maybe port over the image if that's desired. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I agree with this. Plus, at least the subspecies and distinct population pages like Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker and South China tiger are decently written with more content than two sentences. The IUCN status on the north-eastern black rhinoceros page is not even sourced. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  you cannot vote twice FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Black Rhinoceros. While there are scientific papers mentioning the NE Black Rhino that should be referenced, I don't think anything is gained by having a separate article. [1] [2] --Spacepine (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, this information can be included in the species article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The north-eastern black rhinoceros is already listed on the black rhinoceros page with the same text as the current individual page. Can you link the scientific papers discussing the subspecies? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Edelgardvonhresvelg: the links [3][4] were in my not vote. I think the maps in those papers of the extinct subspecies (not just NE) range are of interest, but you're right, the text is already covered. --Spacepine (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Black rhinoceros per above. --cyclopia^speak! 10:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Coresly

QalasQalas (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the final consensus for this article? Two keeps, two deletes, and two merges. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of getting something done, merging the additional cites to the listing in the species article would be uncontroversial IMO. We can use extra references but we can not use an extra article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]