Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species of animals


 * 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. One two three... 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of species of animals

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Such an article could never be complete enough to be useful, given the enormous diversity in the kingdom. The only way to list all animal species would be to divide the list up, in which case this article becomes redundant to lists of animals. Stemonitis (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Although technical compliant with WP:NOTESAL, this list is a classic violation of WP:IINFO. The term animal in the context of a WP list could only be more indiscriminate if it was changed to every living thing. A variety of sources indicate there are from 2-15 millon species in the Kingdom Animalia.  That would make for a very long list.  I have created many a list of animals (List of non-marine molluscs of Montana for example) but I think if I tried to add the 197 animals in that list to this list, someone would say Whoa.  This was created by a new editor whom I will engage directly with some advice. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a laudable effort, but unfortunately it is pretty much as impossible as having a 'list of things'. There are just too many species for this to ever be complete or readable. Also, sublists already exist. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article creator should be encouraged to add this material to existing lists of more manageable size. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The user who created this article also created the similar List of animal species and subspecies. Perhaps that list should be added to this discussion. Calathan (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Impossible scope.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both due to unmanageability, then redirect to Lists of animals. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both, for the approach is unsuitable--it could better be defined as "list of commonly known animals", and is at a level appropriate for a pre-school encyclopedia. I do not consider a proper list here would be impossible. There are now known about 1.4 million animal species (the actual number is generally considered to be about 10 times the number known)--in principle we will have a page on each of them, and could make an alphabetic list .There are reasons  why someone might want to browse an alphabetic list.  And in fact there is one available outside WP: you can browse Encyclopedia of Life that way, though it is a very inefficient display, which could be made much more compact; it really wasn't meant primarily for browsing, and we could  do better using EOL data. Additionally, since all species names are binomials, a practical alphabetic list could be by genus. And there are in fact   such a list Nomenclature Zoologicus] (print and online) The technique in Nomenclature Zoologicus is a little complicated: do not use browse, which looks at each chronological volume separately, go to advanced search, enter a somewhat truncated name with an asterisk, and specify exact search.  -- I know it seems odd to specific exact when you want to browse, but that's how it works -- e.g. this search for Eug*).  NZ is unfortunately not linked to species, though it could be linked to EOL in principle.   DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * incidentally, the nearest equivalent page on Wikipedia is not Lists of animals, but the list found in the article  DGG''' ( talk ) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Not because it's non-notable or not encyclopedic, because it's just too broad of a topic to be useful or manageable. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan


 * 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.