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 Flatworm. I copied the material over to what seemed like an appropriate section; editors with a better knowledge of the subject should review for accuracy. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haptor[edit]

Should be merged into flatworm article. Who signs articles? Avruch ^Talk 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind to merge "Haptor" into "Flatworm", but why than is on Gyrodactylus salaris article a link "Haptor" to edit?! I reckon someone should have an eye on these "details" as well, instead only on new made articles because it is not the first time, where I do a job which is getting deleted shortly after! Please delete such "open-to-edit-links" in future. Xavierschmit^Talk 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be a content expert here - if Haptor is something that is unique and interesting, or common across species or something, then you could potentially expand the article into something encyclopedic. As it stands, its just a stub about the anatomy of a flatworm. I'm not sure why it was redlinked, but we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you continue to contribute. Avruch ^Talk 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can make a word a WP:REDLINK. Like this. Unfortunately, it is up to the editor following the redlink to start an article to make sure that the topic meets WP:N. I de-redlink terms when editing articles all the time (it used to be the case that people would make every person mentioned a redlink, for example), but there will always be articles that nobody has seen. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called: the Veterinary medicine WikiProject. It might be interesting for this? But I'm not quite sure what it is, so it's probably not on me to make this judgment. Xavierschmit^Talk 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly WP:ANATOMY, less possibly WP:TREE (but there is no subproject for the flatworm phylum). --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is extensive documention on Google Books and Google Scholar, although I note that it isn't a feature common to all flatworms, but just to Class Monogenea. (And that "haptor" seems to be a common OCR error for "Chapter" ...) The redlinks prohaptor and opisthaptor probably should be redirected to this article. There is even such a thing as a pseudohaptor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since there's already some discussion of the topic on Monogenea, and since they're apparently the only beasts that have them, it seems logical to merge this into that article. Tim Ross·^talk 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Tim Ross. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the two Tims above. Also, per Dhartung, prohaptor, opisthaptor and pseudohaptor should be redirects instead of redlinks (I can't imagine them ever becoming articles for anything else, for example band names). Keeper | 76 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the redirects for prohaptor and pseudohaptor (which is why they aren't red anymore in this discussion, hope that's not too confusing). Keeper | 76 17:43, 23 November 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.