Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parasitic organisms


 * 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  Speedy keep (non-admin closure). The consensus is clear, and the nominator (Aderksen) gave no specific reasons, upon which the article can be deleted. They seems not to know about this discussion. Ruslik (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of parasitic organisms

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

''Note: This article was tagged for AfD but nothing more was done. However, a discussion was underway over several months on the talk page. That text is copied below. This may cause this discussion to look different to our normal discussions. I am not expressing an opinion either way on this discussion; I am merely completing the listing.'' ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this list seriely going to conain all the the parisitic organisms in the world, and in fiction? This is unrealistic, and will become far to long. This should instead be split into seperate articles such as "Parasitic Fungi", "Parasitic Protists", etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.147.150 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second your suggestion, and nominate this article for deletion as soon as I figure out how to do it appropriately. This would be an almost endless list of prominent creatures in both life-sciences and fiction, and many of the creatures discussed are already described as parasites on their own pages or on the parasite page itself. Listing them all here is redundant and fairly pointless. Aderksen (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay - I think I've successfully marked this page for termination, and good riddance. I don't think we need an endless list when most of the things on it are already part of other substantial articles on wikipedia. Worse still, a number of the creatures listed could probably be moved to a discussion of parasitoids instead of parasites, or even that of endosymbionts. This is not a terribly useful article. Aderksen (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - can be expanded, then split when long enough. cygnis insignis 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would the nominator care to proffer some policy grounds upon which to delete? "Not a terribly useful article" doesn't qualify; tens of thousands of perfectly legal Wikipedia articles wouldn't be "terribly useful."    RGTraynor  15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems useful in navigating the Wikipedia world. WP:CLN explains why it should be kept.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - assuming "parasitic" is defined and the list is supplied with sources (plus the fictional part excised, preferably), it's a perfectly reasonable and quite useful topic. Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I could complain about the absence of my brother-in-law from the article, I have to agree with the previous comments about its worthiness. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all keeps above. This is a typical WP list that is very useful for navigation and orientation to its subject matter.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but split off or delete the fiction element. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and split as necessary. This seems to be a perfectly good list subject per WP:LIST.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What, no Paparazzi? ;-) &mdash;RJH (talk) 19:59, 8 October 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.