Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICZN

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 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. A hatnote can handle the other subject if needed. So Why 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICZN

[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)

Redirect disambiguation page to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The other listed target is International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the publisher of the code, and not notable for anything else. Any time readers encounter "ICZN" in the wild it will usually be for the code. Even in internal discussions, any attempt to lazy-link [[ICZN]] is usually in reference to the code, not its publisher. Disambiguation can be done with {{about|the standard referred to as ''ICZN''|its publisher|International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature}}. The organization is also already mentioned in the second sentence of the code article's lead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - So related that a hatnote is indeed best, —Paleo Neonate – 23:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and PaleoNeonate: Moved this here from MfD; AfD is the proper venue to nominate disambiguation pages for deletion, see WP:Deletion venue. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Code appears the primary topic for "ICZN", so ICZN should redirect to the Code with a hatnote to the Commission as above. PamD 08:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions, the list of Animal-related deletion discussions, and the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to moderate Redirect - the Code has about 5x the daily page views, and about 1.5x the number of inbound links. A quick sample of those inbound links show that most are legitimate, though include a few links from footnote refs. The current links to ICZN from talk pages and the like show a mix of references to both the code and the commission (or sometimes the true target isn't clear.) I worry the link differential, which was one of SMC's primary reasons for the change, isn't enough to support making one the "primary" topic, but combined with the page views and the above opinion of those more versed in biology than I, I can support the redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Here, it's clear that "ICZN" most often refers to the Code rather than the Commission. It is important to be aware, though, that the Commission always uses "ICZN" to refer to itself, not the Code (see, as just one example, [1]). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature article is completely inconsistent, using "ICZN" to refer to the Code in some places and the Commission in others, particularly in the references. For these reasons, I would prefer to keep ICZN as a disambiguation page. If the change is made, then the introduction to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should make clear the Commission's usage, and the article should be fixed to use the initialism consistently. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Gorthian (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's proposal to use a hatnote for this WP:2DABS page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (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.