Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanket octopus

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket octopus

Should Blanket octopus be deleted? 193.167.132.66 09:33, 2005 Feb 11 (according to history Uncle G 12:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))

• Delete. The only relevant thing here is the sexual dimorphism, and even that could as well be mentioned in an article about sexual dimorphism itself, or an article about octopuses in general.193.167.132.66 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a very relevant article. What other creature relies more on its arm than its penis to have sex? XOXmadelynXOX 15:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its jokey high-school style might easily be made more adult. The grown-up name is Tremoctopus violaceus. Interested folks might Google the scientific name for information. Wikipedia will never be having separate articles of every species, as if they rated like Pokemon characters, so perhaps this should be merged with Octopus. We don't vote "delete" on subjects we know nothing about. --Wetman 11:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am quite aware that the blanket octopus really exists and is not a made-up animal. My previous comment was about the style, which as you say, is jokey high-school style. As it stands, this article is worth very little. Rewritten, it could be quite a useful article. I change my vote to Keep, provided that it is rewritten in a better style. 193.167.132.66 11:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The bad style was why I put {{cleanup-tone}} on it (which was removed by Adrianbg). The blanket octopus does exist, and (contrary to Wetman's implication above) we do have individual articles for several species. Have a look at Category:Animals and all of its sub-categories. Heck, look at Category:Octopuses! (The article needs {{CatNeeded}} as well.) Keep. Uncle G 12:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
      • I repeat: " Wikipedia will never be having separate articles of every species" --Wetman 12:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The remainder of your sentence, which gives it a markedly different implication to that of the fragment that you have repeated when taken alone, is, of course, still there above. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
• Keep; all real species belong in wikipedia (I oppose merging). This contains useful information although the tone is inappropriate. I guess I'd better list this this on the VfD page, since that hasn't been done yet. Kappa 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep all species belong in wikipedia, though unfortunately we don't have enough coleopterists and lepidopterists, and as a result it's hideously biased towards big fluffy mammals and birds, seeing something different is refreshing. Dunc|☺ 15:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but Cleanup, or maybe merge/redir what's encyclopedic to Tremoctopus, as this seems to describe all the related species. Niteowlneils 16:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While I do not endorse the position that all real species should have their own articles (can anyone even imagine doing so for each species of insect?), this certainly ranks well above any pokemon. Keep and clean. I suppose I can take a stab at fixing it myself. -R. fiend 18:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are people in the world who are as mad about insects as the Pokemon people are mad about Pokemon. Admittedly, there are comparative fewer of the people, and more of the insects. Nonetheless ... Uncle G 20:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • It was the number I was referring to. There are something like .05% as many Pokemon as there are insects. Certainly many insect species deserve articles, but I can't really say that about all of them. Likewise I think maybe about 5 or 6 Pokemon deserve articles (and perhaps as few as just Pikachu). Oh well. "Gotta catch 'em all...." -R. fiend 21:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was this listed on VfD by an anon? GRider\^talk 19:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • An anon posted the VfD tag, I listed it on VfD after some discussion had begun on the sub-page. I wasn't sure if that was the best thing to do, what would you have done? Kappa 20:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at Tremoctopus I'm concerned that this might be a mis-classification. I modify my vote to: Move to a correct name, and send to Cleanup for Merging to and from Tremoctopus as appropriate. Uncle G 20:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
• Cleanup. I'd be all for Wikipedia having an article on every multicellular species, if such a list even existed. - Mustafaa 22:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article is of academic interest and clearly interesting to the lay person as well. Knowledge of this species should not be relegated to a pithy footnote on a sexual dimorphism article.
• Keep : the unique and unusual in biology often lead to re-evaluation of theories based on what is observed every day. I've replaced the References with more appropriate ones and hope that someone has the wherewithall to expand this article. Courtland 04:25, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Real animal with potential for good article on it. Well done, Courtland. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article seems to be well on its way in clean-up and expansion. Shouldn't the VfD notice be removed? 85.76.152.179 09:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No. Let the VFD process run its course to completion. It is important that the notice remain in place throughout the whole of that process. Uncle G 04:20, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic, and article is improving. I removed some old notices (but not VfD notice). Johntex 18:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.