Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of edible fish


 * 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. The consensus may be to delete, but should DreamFocus or Mgm want this page anywhere, there's nothing to prevent userfication Fritzpoll (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of edible fish

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

There's no evidence of reliable sourcing of information here, and despite having been tagged for improvement for several months, there's no apparent plan for making this list exhaustive (it's far from it), or alternatively, limiting its scope in a useful and straightforward way. This article, because it implies that certain things are safe for human consumption, should be held to a high standard of verifiability: it's effectively making a health claim, and should be properly referenced like an article about human nutrition. Therefore, delete. TheFeds 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Template:Fishing industry topics should be amended to remove this article's link, if the verdict of this AfD is "delete". TheFeds 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem I see is that this is really a how-to article. There are already guides for commercial and sport fishing and also survival guides on what can be eaten in an emergency. WP is not the place for this and as the nominator said could pose a danger. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as list, I don't see a how-to issue. Perhaps not our proudest moment, but I've seen more ridicules lists (some cartoon characters for example) — Ched ~  (yes?)/© 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article states, 99% of fish are edible. A List of inedible fish would be much more interesting and useful. -Drdisque (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A List of poisonous fish is really what's needed. Then we will feel safe to eat all the rest. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Drdisque.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think what this article is trying to be is a List of fish that are caught or farmed commercially on a large scale or something similar. While I somewhat understand the point of the list, I think it would be hard to define criteria for inclusion in the list.  How would we determine if a specific species is farmed or caught commercially on a large scale?  While there would be reliable sources for a lot of them, the hard part would be defining "large scale".  And if we don't include "large scale" then if someone catches some obscure fish for commercial reasons, then it could be included, which wouldn't really be appropriate.  If someone can think of a better title than my redlink above, and they are willing to source the list, I wouldn't be opposed to something like that.  I also like the idea of a list of poisonous fish as well. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This could be a useful list. I'd prefer to have a list of all fish, with a category box next to them listing if they were edible, edible only after processing somehow, or inedible.  Plus perhaps say if they are commercially farmed, or wild.  Or if the wild ones are poisonous, list the fish twice, once as (wild) and the other as (farmed).   D r e a m Focus  04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Linguist and Dream - could be improved into a useful list - needs someone to adopt the list &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy or projectify. I see the potential as mentioned by Dream Focus, but I also understand why it was nominated. The list, in its current form duplicates the category, and it cannot easily be improved beyond that status. I therefore believe that moving this in userspace or project space until clear inclusion guidelines are set (and referenced) and more than a list of names is included, is the best option. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All sorts of problems with this one-- unsourced, indiscriminate, vague. As the article has said from the beginning, "This list is simply a copy of list of fish common names where the most obviously inedible species are removed."  It's added that "99 percent" of fish are edible.  The fact that a particular type of fish can be eaten doesn't mean that it is on a menu somewhere.  A well-sourced list of inedible fish would make more sense.   Mandsford (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The list seems to be a bunch of original research. It is also farily indiscriminate and has no sources whatsoever.  There's also no information on why the list is notable.  Them  From  Space  15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of poisonous fish or List of inedible fish would be interesting, but this List is to broad ("99% of fish are edible") and is :Category material. As we browse :Cat's we can see the :Cat Tree is breaking it down to provide more info than this Article does (only a name). See Category:Lists of fishes Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the edibility or inedibility of fish (as by humans) may be one way of dividing the fish per a category, but not lists that can never be exhaustive and where members will likely be in the 10's or 100's of thousands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As pointed out above, a list of edible fish is rather ridiculous, and possibly even open to legal action if it contains inaccurate information. A list of poisonous fish, with a brief indication of why they are poisonous, would be interesting. Also a list of commercially important fish, with a brief indication of why they are commercially important. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a list of the top 20 or top 50 most commercially important fish? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone can catch such a list in a published source, reel it on in. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (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.