Reproduction speed: Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation) .  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Generation time .  A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate.  Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs.  However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application.  I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation) , as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article.  BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation) .   It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications.   I could also live with a delete, though.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction .  If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be.  It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation) .  I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here.  The reason I am not ! voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed , as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor.  When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals.  BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Google results are odd.  Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology.  When I search for reproduction speed , 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.  I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate".  I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed .  Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source.  If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit.  BusterD ( talk ) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete