Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of carnivorans by population

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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of carnivorans by population[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the same reasoning presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of felidaes by population- namely, that this is redundant to the excellent List of carnivorans and daughter-lists, which are also up-to-date and more informative overall. I would also like to bundle List of even-toed ungulates by population and List of odd-toed ungulates by population in this nomination, for the same reasons (out of date content forks to List of artiodactyls & daughters, and List of perissodactyls). SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of felidaes by population was that the population figures were also present in List of felids. But for List of carnivorans and List of artiodactyls the population estimates are not included so the same reasoning does not apply and the lists are not redundant. List of perissodactyls does indeed include population figures but before supporting the deletion of List of odd-toed ungulates by population I'd like to be sure I am not misunderstanding the whole situation. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an "X by Y" list that fulfills WP:LISTPURP. The lists currently seem to fulfill different informational purposes, as well. I would not be fundamentally opposed to a merge, but it would have to be done with care as each list has a purpose in its current state, so I'm not sure an AFD is the right place to make that determination. —siro χ o 20:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Agletarang (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can split off into other lists if it gets too long. This seems to be a valid navigational and information list. Having a column listing what year the information was gotten from would be useful. Dream Focus 23:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thincat. The previous article that was cited as precedent was redundant, while this is not. Steven Walling • talk 06:55, 26 July 2023 (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.

Keep Clearly needs standalone list. Shankargb (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]