Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fossorials


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

List of fossorials

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Like most of these lists of "animals with trait X", this suffers from a lack of realization of the sheer number of entries. I don't even want to guess at how many thousands of bivalves, annelids, polychaetes, nematodes have fossorial lifestyles. And the beetles, and the ants - the ants... there might be a fighting chance with fossorial mammals only (or possibly tetrapods, if you are feeling feisty about a few hundred frogs and snakes), but anything wider is going to be in "tiny random snapshot" territory, forever. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Biology,  and Lists. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: as the nom says, such a list is untenable, and serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. At best, we could attempt a category, but even that would have limited value. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: this should be a category at best. A more specific list like fossorial mammals is maybe doable, but if it was actually complete across all mammals it would be so long as to be meaningless. The overview article at Fossorial should suffice. Steven Walling &bull; talk  04:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no useful purpose in this list. CharlesWain (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Will either be completely untenable or grossly incomplete. More specific lists would also become rapidly untenable or become a complete redit of other pages. The vast majority of terrestrial diversity is fossorial at one point or another. A list for fossorial birds might be doable, but it would need good sources to justify that an animal is fossorial, and a clear definition of what is fossorial and what isn't. Categories might prove useful, although again, what is fossorial and what isn't is still subject to debate. As a corollary, this opinion also applies to the WikiProject associated, since fossorial animals are not a category per se (at least, unless your set of reference also includes medieval bestiaries and the occasional pre-Linnean groupings, but I don't recommend that for anything serious), and you would probably have an easier time listing the lifeforms that never dig. Larrayal (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2024 (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.