Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fungi genus list

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 List of fungal orders per WP:SNOW. Though this AfD has run for a short time, there seems to be little disagreement, and WP:D-R are easily reversed. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi genus list

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

Indiscriminate, unreferenced and badly formatted list. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~fungus~~ List of fungal orders. Such lists at most belong within their parent taxonomic level, in this case the family level or to higher levels if not classified to order or family such as Agaricomycetes for an example. A blanket list of all genera within a kingdom does not meet standalone notability requirements we warrant to actual taxonomic groups such as genera in a family. The reason for the redirect is that if someone is really interested in a group of genera without going straight to an order, class, etc. page, they're going to start at the kingdom level (fungi) and work their way down the nomenclature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like Mark viking's redirect below better (missed that link in my quick skim). I don't have any reservations about deleting either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fungal orders. List-class articles like this need to have wiki links to respective articles, referencing and ideally, taxonomic organization. As a list of alphabetized words, this article has little to offer. By contrast List of fungal orders has all three, including a nice hierarchy by phylum and class, and is a useful resource for those trying to understand or search fungal taxonomy. I agree with Kingofaces43 that a redirect to a better article best serves our readers. But I wouldn't count it a great loss if this was simply deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fungal orders. As the previous commenters have mentionned, that article is very beautifully organised and linked. Why keep an inferior partial duplicate? Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2016 (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.