Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amantia peruana infasciata

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 merge‎ to Amantia peruana. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amantia peruana infasciata[edit]

[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)

Subspecies are not inherently notable, while species are. Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many subspecies based articles. If you want to remove them the why not remove all of them? See Category:subspecies Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, subspecies are not inherently notable. That doesn't mean no subspecies are notable, just that the notability of a subspecies must be demonstrated. Your argument is WP:WHATABOUTISM and that doesn't fly here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amantia peruana, as with Amantia peruana peruana. There isn't any new information in each subspecies article that isn't in the species article, except an unsourced sentence about etymology. It would be great to see additional information about the subspecies, but it would still be more appropriate for a merged article presenting all the information in one place rather than three separate articles with a high level of duplication. Mgp28 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an acceptable (and expected) WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mgp28's rationale, but I think WP:PM would have been a better venue for this. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger was proposed but rejected by the author. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: Just because someone wrote the first version of a page doesn't mean they WP:OWN it. They can't unilaterally reject merging it, any more than they can unilaterally reject its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2024 (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.