Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placental mammals

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 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of placental mammals

List of placental mammals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page, as its title suggests, was apparently meant to be a complete list of all mammalian species, except for the marsupials and monotremes. That's crazy! The page is already at 138KB, and isn't even half complete --- probably more like three or four percent complete. The solution is to split it up into one article on Placental mammals in general, and numerous articles on Felis, Canis, and so on. This has been done; probably it had already been done before the List of placental mammals was created. What's next, a List of plants? List of living people? Quuxplusone 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the list is unwieldy. If it were a list of non-placental mammals, I'd understand. - Richardcavell 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep - Very helpful list, sorted in a manner that a category cant. It's about 75% complete, and it's still being worked on. There is a companion list for marsupials and monotremes. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and retool. Instead of a list of all placental mammals have it be a list of genuses among placentals. This will be more manageable.--T. Anthony 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What purpose does that serve? A very different one that a complete list of species. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep/Rename and modify per Anthony. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell. This is rather like having a List of people who did not die from breast cancer as a companion to List of people who died from breast cancer. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep somewhere because this shows off the advantages of a list well; redlinks showing what needs to be done and hierarchical sorting. I don't think 'length' is a sufficient reason to delete something like this. Other possibilities are to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace (there must be some WikiProject that would find the list useful) or to transwiki it to WikiSpecies if they want it. --ais523 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject Mammals will take it, if it must be moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful list. The length is fine. Species are much more significant than the genus level, as genera are defined arbitrarily. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The list is not comparable to List of living people, as (IMHO) every species on the list is notable, and can have a valid wikipedia article (or at least a redirect). It is comparable to List of people by name. If the list turns out to be unwieldy (and it probably will), it may be more useful if it was split by order or superorder. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful list, manageable length. jimfbleak 12:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A long but useful list JoJan 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This organized listing is encyclopedic in the extreme. And the redlinked entries will spur people on to write article on the species not yet having an article such as the "Screaming Hairy Armadillos," which would be a great name for a rock band. Edison 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the best done and most useful lists on all of Wikipedia. Add one of Placental Mammal, also, if there isn't one. From an evolutionary biology and wildlife perspective this is very valuable. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should include more lists of this nature that divide organisms strictly along familiar evolutionary lines, excellent for the layman and useful for the specialist. KP Botany 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ditto to JoJan & others - MPF 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not all lists are useful, but this one is, and manageably so. RFerreira 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just want to remind all the keepers that this list is 141 kilobytes, and prints to 53 pages of A4. I question who will be able to manage it. As research continues to shuffle the taxonomy of species, will all those who edit the mammal articles remember to update this list as well? If the Cross River Gorilla subspecies were to be reclassified as a new species, as some researchers would have it, then one would need to update the articles Cross River Gorilla, Western Gorilla, Western Lowland Gorilla, and Gorilla - all of which are linked to each other. Then one would have to remember to update List of placental mammals (which is orphaned from all the gorilla articles). - Richardcavell 12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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.