Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mecicobothriidae species


 * 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, consensus is that this is a valid list. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Mecicobothriidae species

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Has existed for roughly 2 years without any of the actual species haveing a BlueLink Article. How useful is a list of redlinks? Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   — Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Red links and usefulness aren't grounds for deletion. There seems to be a standardised format for detailing members of spider species, though in this case its small enough to fit in main article in others like List of Gnaphosidae species it would clearly be too large.  I really don't see the problem with it existing as an article, it's verifiable and encyclopaedic information, even if boring to most of us.-Hunting dog (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you noted that it is in the main Article Mecicobothriidae? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'd suggest that the Mecicobothriidae page was reduced to have only the genera and the list had the full list of sub-species. Like for Stiphidiidae to maintain a consistent format for pages in that subject area.  Either way I think its better fixed by editing / redirecting, rather than arguing for deletion. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: But not for your reasons... because the whole list is here: Dwarf tarantula. It's useful information, even if they are broken links. But this page should be deleted simply because it is duplicate information. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't it be a redirect then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.91.48 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Don';t tear down the framework while itys being filled in. There are people actively working in this area. DGG (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont see it as tearing down a framework, it just seemd a pointless List when the information is already presented (succinctly may I add)in the main Article of Mecicobothriidae and having a List does not add anything of value nor points to a single BlueLink Article. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per and . It's an okay start for a list, and there is even a handy dandy WP:RS reference provided for those that would want to work on it further.  Cirt (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important info list. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.