Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of endangered animal 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of endangered animal species

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Content forking with IUCN Red List endangered species Galmicmi (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Galmicmi (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to IUCN Red List endangered anamalia species and continue to break up a list that is currently over 1100 kB, far beyond the size for a WP:SPLIT. If this one is not kept, some kind of breakdown should be found to get this into multiple lists of reasonable page lengths. The anamalia list is over 600kB by itself, so there may be a better method than splitting by kingdom. IUCN Red List endangered species is far too large to remain a single list.  Jim Miller  See me 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed typo in proposed name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename per JMJ, the other list is very large, and should be split 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with the splitting of IUCN Red List endangered species, but I do not think common names should be kept. You only need one reference to a species in the list, not two or more. If you don't include common names, List of endangered animal species doesn't bring more information than IUCN Red List endangered species. - Galmicmi (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete unless a verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list can be found, for without which this list is without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Such a list is useful. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (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.