Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acari

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 Mite. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acari

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is a longstanding duplicate of mite. For those unfamiliar, mites comprise two distinct, probably not particularly closely related orders of arachnids, the Acariformes and the Parasitiformes, which were historically grouped together in the subclass "Acari", which is still used as a technical term to refer to mites collectively, even if that group is no longer considered monophyletic. In academic literature, there is no distinction made between "mite" and "Acari". Apparently, the whole reason for having these two, nearly identical in scope articles is that "Mite" in English semantically excludes ticks, which are a subgroup of the Parasitiformes. To me, this is not enough of a distinction to justify a wholly separate article with a nearly identical scope. There is no reason that ticks cannot be given proportionate coverage in the mite article. I propose that this article be Redirected to mite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews analysis: Mite: 1650 view per day, Acari: 190 [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The mite page already has Acari bolded in its lead, making it clear that is the subject. Plus its a GA! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom --awkwafaba (📥) 12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This nomination is WP:FORUMSHOP. I reverted[2] the sudden no warning blanking[3] of Acari, nominator counterreverted[4] instead of discussing on Talk:, and instead took it to WT:TOL, and then not finding that a favourable venue, came here 44 minutes later. I don't know what the outcome should be however:

This is not the way to do anything.
This is an encyclopedia and so must be usable. Whatever that requires.
The pageview number is obviously irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. Those numbers are unsurprising.
There still has been no evidence presented to support nominator's taxonomic contention. This is 100% personal opinion. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can WP:BOLDLY redirect an article, there is no requirement to get consensus unless someone challenges it, I did not revert a second time after jts restored the article. Opening an AfD is not a forumshop, it's a way to attract more contributors to get broad consensus. Its very strange for you to say that I do not understand consensus when having looked through your edit history, you do not appear to have had any long-form discussions with any other user prior to to this article. It is not personal opinion, you have not presented any evidence in favour of your view either. You also have not presented an argument as to why having two articles with nearly identical scope (and as of time of writing, nearly identical content) is useful to the reader. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is very substantial duplication between these articles, and I see no reason why both the monophyly and common name issues could not be handled in one single article - as they largely are already at Mite. (NB, Parasitiformes has been left a bit of a backwater and among other things lacks a link to... Mite.) As for procedural concerns, it is true that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Parasitic_Lice_Classification has a level of subject knowledge that is unlikely to be brought to bear here, and it would be useful for participants in that discussion to comment in this AfD - drop a more obvious note, Hemiauchenia? But forumshopping is not a concern; AfD is the most public arbiter of these questions, so this is more of an escalation, which is fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitiformes indeed is a lacking article, but it does link to mite in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2021 (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.