Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of invertebrates

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of invertebrates[edit]

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

A random list of various invertebrates, ranging from the lesser water boatman to spiders. While there's room for a taxonomically correct list (we have several similar such) this isn't more than an indiscriminate list of fauna. Acroterion _(talk) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recently-created List of crustaceans by the same editor has similar problems. Not yet sure if it's been copied from somewhere. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does: copy paste from [1]. User blocked for 24 hours for copyvio after warning, and this page is explicitly marked. Acroterion _(talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, yet a vague list is better than no list at all...right? DonaldET3 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if it was a copyright violation, as the first edit was [2], and as a number of your contributions have been.No information is better than random links. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re above: because an article or a list does no harm, it does not mean that it should be kept. It must satisfy criteria laid down by WP guidelines in order to stay. We can list the classes in the phylum of invertebrates, but we do not need to list anything below that taxonomical level. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Acroterion think that the information on "http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/invert_english.html" is copy-written? I looked over the whole page and found no notes saying that the information was subject to copyright.DonaldET3 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia operates under the free-content CC-by-SA license.
- Unless material on other websites is licensed under the same terms, it may not be used.
- An absence of explicit copyright is taken under law and Wikipedia policy as equivalent to all rights reserved.
- Wikipedia policy doesn't permit you to copy anything from anywhere, except under narrowly defined terms - if you don't understand this, you should not be contributing here. It's a very serious matter. Acroterion _(talk) 03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator. Which exactly taxonomically correct lists of invertebrates do we have? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of placental mammals and sublists (yes, I know they're vertebrates, but we do have some useful lists), for example. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either change this to being a "list of lists of invertebrates", or just delete. There are millions of species that could be included on such a list, so it would be much better to make this a list of lists rather than trying to include them all here. If there is no desire to change this to being a list of lists, then delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Invertebrate which has much the same high-level content currently. There's much scope for more specialised lists of invertebrates - endangered; economically important; found in particular ecologies. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all major phyla of invertebrates are already included in Invertebrates. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I am recovering from a 24 hour editing block. Acroterion claims that I violated copyright, and the only website which I did violate copyright did not clearly mark itself as so. I did go to a clearly copy-written website only to reference a list of invertebrates. It was a LIST. I did not copy any creative work from that website, it was a plain list of nonfiction facts which I would have been accused of "original research" if I did not site sources which fully back-up the information. Is it really legal for a copyright to get in the way of publishing such plain facts? DonaldET3 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained at greater length on your userpage, you may not copy material from elsewhere on the Internet, except under narrowly defined circumstances. If you copy freely-licensed material and don't explicitly attribute it, it's plagiarism - passing off the work of others as your own. You were warned and did it anyway. As a matter of principle, while it's possible for someone who understands copyright to legitimately use list-format material, your copies clearly don't fall under such an exclusion, as the lists involved are selective and distinctive, as opposed to a mere mass of material. Now that you know all this, I'm sure you won't make those mistakes again. Acroterion _(talk) 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Original Research and WP:Copyright violations are not a Catch-22, DET3; the solution is to write what other people have said, but in your own words. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say whatever you do to the vertebrates, you should do the same with the invertebrates. That is the second reason why I tried to start this list. We might avoid potential organization problems if we prepare for those "millions of species" that User:Metropolitan90 is talking about. DonaldET3 (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support that; as I said, a taxonomically-rigorous list is fine. As with the vertebrates, it will require a hierarchy of lists, rather than one giant list or the present mixed list of species, genera, families, etc. Acroterion _(talk) 03:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't approve of !votes saying "strong delete" or the like, but if I did, I would be using superlatives here. The whole thing is a terrible idea and should be deleted at the earliest opportunity. This list can never be anything like complete. Invertebrates cover 98% of all animal species, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude the remaining 2% if they were to be listed. Even a list of crustaceans is unfeasible; a list of all invertebrates is unimaginable. Note also that, unlike Vertebrata, Invertebrata is not a taxon in current usage. It is a paraphyletic group, meaning that its members have nothing in common other than the absence of a spinal cord. (You might as well make a list of wingless animals, or animals that aren't flatworms.) The correct analogy, instead, would be that if we have a list of all vertebrates, then we should have lists of the other taxa (note plural) at similar ranks, perhaps for each phylum. Even that would be stupidly cumbersome in some cases, but would at least be a reasonable comparison. The appropriate method would be to list together all the higher taxa that make up the invertebrates, and then add the vertebrates, too, because there's no reason to exclude them. That list already exists, and is at animal (and phylum), where it belongs. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to List of lists of invertebrates per Metropolitan90 Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Invertebrates" is not a good category. You could argue for a redirect to lists of animals, but separating off one subphylum is absurd. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering the millions of invertebrate species, this list can never be close to complete, and as such must be arbitrarily selective. This is exactly the kind of thing that categories, not lists, are designed for. —Lowellian (reply) 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make a list of crustaceans on Notepad before I turn it into an article on Wikipedia, and Lowellian might be right about the length of the list. It is currently over 1,500 lines long! DonaldET3 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's woefully incomplete. There are an estimated 50,000 described species of crustaceans (no-one knows the exact number without carrying out very extensive taxonomic revisionary work). For comparison, see the list of squat lobsters here, which only covers a couple of families. I suggest you find other avenues of contribution than producing arbitrary, selective lists of massively diverse higher taxa. Lowellian is right that the category hierarchy serves this purpose perfectly well. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to make a complete list. If you want to add this information to wikipedia, I suggest you make genus articles and list the species there. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (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.