Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance

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 keep. W.marsh 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance

Delete as part of long running cycle to promote original research. See the various xFD discussions on and linked to from the pages here, here, and here. Merge useful information, should any exist, to Edward R. Dewey. Tim Shuba 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The population cycle is well known and well documented. See http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=84 --Eastmain 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ the cycle is probably the most famous example of ecological cycles, mostly because the data goes so far back. Scholar finds over a 6,000 hits on the lynx cycle.[1] I do think the article should be renamed, however, because "9.6" is _way_ more specific than can be statistically supported by the data. Upon further review AllanBColson 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, I find the article, as currently written, without any merit. Certainly, a useful and encyclopedic article can be written on the lynx cycle. However, this particular incarnation does appear rather crankish. I'd suggest either deleting these and starting over or completely re-writing with no more than a mention of this Dewey chap. AllanBColson 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - agree with AllanBColson, the lynx cycle is a fitting subject for a Wikipedia article, but the current version requires a complete rewrite. Addhoc 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and documented phenom. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - The Canadian lynx article at present contains a mere seven short paragraphs. Inclusion of the nominated article serves only as a content fork that is unnecessary and counterproductive. The preceding assumes the nominated article is actually about the population cycle of the lynx. Per the various xFDs linked to above, my conclusion is that it was created for another purpose entirely. Tim Shuba 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your speculations are not relevant to the article. The article is about the subject matter that it claims to be about. If there is a long running program, it is to inform about cycle studies not original research. None of the two articles and one category that you refer to are original research. You need to have a higher standard of accuracy in your statements. Ray Tomes 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The article is about a well documented cycle. It is not original research as claimed by Shuba. Ray Tomes 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search Addhoc 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lynx cycle has been a historic research resource and is still relevant in current cycles research e.g.

here Pentilius 21:10, 4 February 2007 (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.