Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark List By Weight

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. Courcelles 08:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shark List By Weight[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced, misleading and of no encyclopaedic value - and the title is wrong too, it's actually a list by length. Are these average or maximum lengths? And who says these are the lengths? In fact the figures quoted are at odds with some WP articles, e.g. Whale shark. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR. andy (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note: this is now at Shark List By Length! TheGrappler (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Poorly written, unreferenced, would suggest considering for speedy delete Ashman05 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, but that can be fixed, as can the incorrect title. Of more concern is the apparent inaccuracy, lack of citations, and arguably unencyclopedic nature of the list. Anaxial (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed. The information on which sharks are the largest should be given in shark, and information on average size and record size (of each species) in the article on each species. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary in Wikipedia, as said above. Poorly written and completely unreferenced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly meaningless discussion unless someone "saves" this - nobody would want what is currently there to remain in WP. But if somebody did come along and produce a well-sourced page which showed the comparative sizes of different species of sharks, I'd probably be minded to keep it actually. I certainly disagree that "The information on which sharks are the largest should be given in shark, and information on average size and record size in the article on each species." A page giving comparative sizes of sharks, especially if illustrated by a good figure, would add a lot of educational/reader value; content + context + reader value is what I'm looking for when deciding to keep a list. TheGrappler (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with informing people about their relative sizes in the same places you are informing them of their other features. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all, but with so many species of shark only a small overview could be given in such an article section. There is certainly enough information to spin off a more complete daughter article, in principle. The current page under discussion just isn't it! TheGrappler (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was a section in shark about the sizes of sharks, including the largest and smallest species, and information on the size of each species in that species' own article. I don't really see what is gained by a list of shark species by size. Would you want a list of, say, carnivores by size or birds by size? -Steve Dufour (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's valid to compare the sizes of some sharks, in an article subsection, why isn't it valid or useful to perform a more complete exercise on a dedicated page? Lengths can be usefully illustrated diagramatically, so such a page could present the information in a variety of ways. You may not want to use it but it seems a perfectly acceptable exercise in reference material to me. Sharks are a well-defined category with significant variation in sizes between species, which is why the exercise is not a pointless one: "carnivores by size" or "birds by size" might not work so well, due to the very large number of species to be listed. But a list of largest (e.g. top 30) land carnivores would actually work quite well, and would be a welcome addition in my opinion. TheGrappler (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that those lists would be bad, just that there's no real need for them since the information should be given in the main articles. BTW is anyone interested in a list of the world's largest ants or grasshoppers? I didn't think so. It's probably because we humans are especially interested in animals that are larger than us. -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction between a summary section in a main article, with a larger, specialist spin-off article which presents the information more thoroughly (see WP:SUMMARY). Actually I would genuinely be interested in a list of ants ordered by size. This is something that I did once try to find, funnily enough: the disparity between the largest and smallest species of ants is really quite impressive. TheGrappler (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Oh, man, kill it now before the cruft squad finds out and we get lists of bears by weight, kangaroos by weight, breakfast cereals by weight, and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but this is totally unreferenced in addition to being not notable. (It has been moved to Shark List By Length to reflect the actual content, so that issue is out of the way.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (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.