Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep-sea gigantism

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 kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I have never heard of this phenomena (as a practising marine biologist) nor have my colleagues...cold water gigantism yes but not deep water gigantism. The examples given are inappropriate as two of the species are pelagic rather than deep water per se. No references are given either Tullimonstrum 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems like it ought to be fixed, then, not deleted. The term is out there enough that I went to look it up. Even if the article changes to describe it as a common but inappropriate colloquialism, I think it should stay. --Masamage 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 120 GHits, many Wikipedia or wikipedia derived. I do not beleive this term is in use or represents a widely recognised phenomena. Artw 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep - googling further I find serval references to gigantisism in ocean floor creatures. The term deep-sea gigantism isn't always used but its seeming a lot more like a real phenomena, and if cites and references can be used to back that up I'd be all for keeping the article.

• Provisional keep. I realize you're an expert and I'm not, but please have a look at this article in the Journal of Biogeography.--Pharos 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and see I've contacted the original author requesting references - they're not around much, though. I respect Tullimonstrum's authority on this, but the article Pharos links to suggests that there may be something interesting there. If subsequent searching shows sources, splendid, otherwise deletion is probably appropriate. Also: killer picture! I hope we can use that somewhere. Ziggurat 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve the article. Please see a reference to this and the opposite phenomenon in Sciencedaily. Killer picture indeed!! (two hands to hold that bugger!) Shenme 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My first edit to anything wikipedia is a recommendation that this article stay (and expand). I ran across the term in Castro & Huber's college text Marine Biology (McGraw-Hill Higher Education 2005 and 2007).

And a mention in Fundamentals of Aquatic Biology ([1]). Ziggurat 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK more convinced now that the concept is out there Tullimonstrum 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) but the article as it stands is in no way evidence. Just goes to show. Mea culpa Ñ--Tullimonstrum 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just expand it. -ScotchMB 00:04, 21 July 2006 (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.