Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of radiata animal orders


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

List of radiata animal orders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

'Radiata' is not a clade, is obsolete, and historically was defined in (very) different ways at different times, so 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. In short, it's totally misleading. An editor removed the prod so here we are. I have added a table of alternative definitions to Radiata, which I think says pretty much all that is needed on the topic. The varying definitions at phylum level shown in the table in Radiata show exactly why the idea of creating a list at (modern) order level is a non-starter - the definitions are incompatible with each other (so no list is possible), and in addition translating Cuvier's 1817 classification into any list of 2018 orders which did not exist in his day makes no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What a clear explanation and well-reasoned deletion nomination. I get tired of seeing the usual boilerplate, alphabet soup of unelaborated acronyms dropped at AFD without any regard to the specific content. It's nice to see an argument clearly based on an understanding of the subject matter. Could a redirect to Radiata still be useful? postdlf (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's good to hear. I don't think this is a plausible search term, and for the reasons I gave, Radiata does not provide any lists of animal orders either, so I favour deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, unless it can be shown that historical sources provided extensive lists of this sort that go beyond the outline definitions already added to radiata. That would make it encyclopaedic in my opinion, but the current list mapping modern groupings onto historical definitions is WP:OR.  I'm not persuaded by the argument that contradictory definitions rule out this page.  That could be handled by separate sections, but as I say, there needs to be proper sourcing first. SpinningSpark 23:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you: what a well-reasoned argument, on both sides of the case. A model of clarity and logic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the rationale eloquently put forward by the OP and of . Artificially forcing modern taxa into this list is definitely WP:OR, especially as there were clear shifting sands of the meaning of the group, and no references have been put forward to support it. The summary at Radiata seems to suffice, and I agree there's little value in turning this into a redirect. I would not expect to find a "List of Vermes animal orders", but would expect to find a reasonable explanation of what both now-abandoned groupings meant to naturalists at the time, and over the centuries that followed. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The nomination and the above remarks are sound and well-expressed. If Radiata were expanded with additional details from historical sources to the point that it became unwieldy, then I could see an argument for splitting off a list of some kind, but that seems an unlikely eventuality. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Spinningspark. -- 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I disagree with Chiswick Chap's claim that " 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. " Any group that has ever been included in "Radiata" [by a reputable source] would be in the category "formerly classified as Radiata". According to the article "Radiata", this would include ctenophora, cnidaria, myxozoa, placozoa, echinoderms and "parasitic worms". [I am aware that echinoderms and parasitic worms are bilaterians.] Also, his argument that radiata is "not a clade" is unimportant. After all, we have "List of reptiles". (Actually, "List of reptiles" is weakly sourced, with only a single reference.) Rather, the problem with this list article is the absence of a single reliable source with a clear list encompassing the last two centuries of classification systems. This makes the list article non-notable, while the main article ("Radiata") is notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 3 September 2018 (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.