Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of apex predators

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of apex predators

This page suffers from two related problems. First, it is impossible to demarcate what is an apex predator because the term is generic, not a strict category. Thus, second, it is riddled with OR. People take the definition of "apex predator," look at some animal page, and decide "ya, I'll add it to the list." It's almost completely unsourced because most of the entries were off-the-top-of-the-head additions by various editors applying the definition themselves. And it will remain unsourced because, again, it's a generic term that biologists don't often explicitly assign to species. The second section speaks for itself: Extinct predators that were likely apex predators. "Were likely" is self-evidently OR.

However, I hope this can be basically a merge rather than a delete. One scrupulous editor did add some academic sources a couple of years ago; I have moved them here. I intend to incorporate relevant info to the main apex predator page. As a list is inherently unmanageable on this topic, choice examples can be used on the main search target, with sources that explicitly mention species vis-a-vis the term. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I actually have nothing against a list of this nature - however the current version is almost completely unsourced and, as the nominator mentioned, original research. Will gladly change my mind if an authoritative source for this kind of information can be found. Arkyan 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to the nebulous (and possibly OR) nature of a comprehensive list. The original article is pretty short, so selected material would be easy to incorporate with discussion and examples. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A list of top-level (apex) predators is useful in the fields of ecology and Zoology. Beno1000 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to those entries that have refs. On a side note, the diagram below is cute. Almost all predators have open jaws and the most dangerous predator is waving his hand.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim? Possibly. But the fundamental problem won't go away: this is not a scientific category but a generic term and people are going to continue to add their own interpretative additions. It's essentially unmanageable. It's a little like maintaining a "List of excellent baseball players"—there is no way to clearly draw a boundary. Marskell (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources show it is in fact a scientific ecological category. DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is interesting, helpful and sourced list.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all the Keep comments above. This list meets all the relevant WP guidelines from my point of view.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the main article apex predator clearly shows it is a defined term. Any issue about lack of sourcing would be quite easily determinable with a yes/no decision, this is what citation needed tags and the talk page are for. Other keepers should note that 'interesting' and 'usefull' are not generally considered good reasons to keep an article, and might want to read he official wikipedia policy on what wikipedia is not, and this essay on the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I agree that the likely to have section is probably original research, unless there are several sources for such claims. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (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.