Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diseases in zebras

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 Zebra. Miniapolis 23:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases in zebras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unusual to have an article on "Diseases in XYZ animal" (see Category:Animal diseases), instead we seem to use categories like Category:Rabbit diseases on a per-animal basis, or Epilepsy in animals on a per-disease basis, or African horse sickness on a per-disease+animal basis. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Zebra, which currently lacks a disease section. As nom says, the topic is possible but not customary, and without further detail and refs is redundant to category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Zebra - yeah, seems like a good faith effort but there's no need to fork this out. Stalwart111 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More appropriate as a stand alone article than a category or making the zebra article clunky. A category of zebra diseases would require individual articles and zebra pathogens are more studied for their relationship to horse pathogens and for biodiversity of a herd for conservation, because they are not domestic animals. A stand alone article makes sense. There are plenty of resources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but do you really think the addition of around 1500 bytes of content is really going to make Zebra "clunky". There's nothing in the article now that deals with the subject. Shouldn't that be the starting point? Stalwart111 12:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it will, since he article needs written properly. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge to zebra The zebra article needs a disease section, there is not much content here, and nothing prevents this article from being re-created when someone really does have a lot of expansive information to share about zebra diseases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Mostly unsourced, and very poorly written (and the sole sourced statement appears to describe a single event, rather than evidence of a typical zebra disease). I really see nothing here worth saving. However, a disease section in Zebra is a good idea. -- 101.119.14.102 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zebra There is a reference, and it appears to contain 100% of the information in the article. Some of the content is anecdotal (like the thing with the leaves) but other data appears to come from actual research. Shouldn't be too hard to look at the reference at figure out which is which if the consensus is to keep. Also "Diseases in Zebras" is like the worst Dr. Suess title ever. PianoDan (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2013 (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.