Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of organisms 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The result was Withdrawn Appears these types of articles are acceptable, plus it is linked from the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of organisms by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A self admitted speculative table which will always be incomplete. Don't really see this as an encyclopaedic topic. AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's useful to have at least approximate numbers from reliable sources, so the article has its merits. Could be renamed to List of organisms by estimated population or so. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly rename / split up). As it appears to be well-sourced I don't see how the list can be described as "speculative." As for its incompletness, if its scope could be more narrowly defined than all organisms then it might be possible for it to become complete. Even if not it could still become comprehensive if not complete. Greenshed (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's as good a list as any other ranking of organisms, but the introduction is incredibly unfit for Wikipedia. "It's just an attempt to rank some well-known organisms." Really? Cleaning this up will be better than outright deleting it. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per CSK 5. Linked to the main page. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how I stumbled across it. Didn't realise there was a criteria for that. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the article is itself wrong in saying the tables are speculative—they look remarkably well referenced to reliable sources. The figures contained in the tables are estimates and will often be speculative but the estimates are by these sources, not by WP:OR. The different tables and the species in each table are not ranked by population (which might over-excite some critics), they are in classification order and alphabetical order by name. Lists do not need to be complete and this one already has sufficient scope to be fully acceptable. My view is that such data is entirely encyclopedic and indeed produces a thoroughly worthwhile article. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. Thincat (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a strange idea, but so long as the numbers have reliable sources, why not? For example, could certainly be used in a discussion of global bear populations simply by using the numbers given. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is decided that this list is worth keeping, would it not be better to simply have a List of organisms with a sortable table. That way it is up to the readers what they wish to look for (i.e by population, ___location, Genus etc). Still think it is a crazy virtually never-ending list to have, may as well have a List of stars article. Whoa, that turned blue? Whew, it only leads to a list of lists. Or maybe define the scope a bit more to list of organisms with a population less/more than [insert low/high number here]. It is the rare organisms or the numerous ones that are interesting, not those in the middle. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you have finished studying List of stars you could turn to List of minor planets! Thincat (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy moly! I guess there is precedent for these types of articles. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a superlative list for this one like List of long-living organisms or Largest organisms would be best. Something like Most populous organisms or something of the like. 8ty3hree (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2012 (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.