Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of superficial anatomical features

List of superficial anatomical features was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP following page move

Discussion previous to move of article:

List of externally visible animal parts
delete. This is not an article. -User:CBDroege


 * Pointless list.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 06:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Worthless. And come on, who organized that capitalization? Delete. - Vague Rant 06:30, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Inherently useful.--Gene_poole 12:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What the...? Delete --Conti|&#9993; 12:41, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was going to say Keep. Its an interesting summary, I don't know how much it will be used, but I can imagine it will have value to some users, and it's a summary not listed elsewhere. However on reflection, perhaps it would be better deleted and the information added under Animal as a new section, "Names for animal body parts", as its basically just a list of cross references and doesn't really need an article of its own. So either that, or if not then Keep, leave it up to the sysops which they think best. FT2 13:11, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really don't see the problem, or any grounds for deletion. It's a useful and practical index. It could I guess be replaced by a category, but I suspect that categories shouldn't replace all lists. Or is this part of another campaign to delete all lists? I notice that one edit summary reads wikipedia is not for lists. Andrewa 17:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete . It's either a weird joke, or a worthless list. Either way... --Improv 20:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The last line shows that the whole thing is a joke.  I worry about people who vote to keep crap like this.  RickK 22:32, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm puzzled. None of the reasons given for deletion relate to any policy that I can think of. Most are incomplete. Why is this crap, nonsense, worthless or pointless? Does this just mean the writers don't like this particular list? Why is it less useful than other lists? I agree that the last line should go, but if a list contains inaccuracies or jokes among other factual material, shouldn't they just be removed? No change of vote. Andrewa 02:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * By "crap", I mean article which has no utility. RickK 05:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting additions you've made to the article. Andrewa 23:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I worry about the unrestrained hubris shown by rabid deletions who make astoundingly sweeping assumptions about the likely "utility" of factual, useful, interesting, articles.--Gene_poole 05:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I assume by the last line you mean the entry that read AirSacks near mouth of frogs whatever they are___change this?. It now reads vocal sack. Still no change of vote. Andrewa 05:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless list. Keep, useful subdivision of otherwise large list. Gazpacho 05:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep after reviewing above discussion &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  08:55, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.Passw0rd 14:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Come on folks, this list is just silly. Try an experiment. Print out this list. Show it to anybody you know who is not involved in Wikipedia. Ask them if it belongs in an encyclopedia and if it is information anyone would ever try to look up. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think I begin to see the problem here. My five and seven your old neices are Wikipedia users (under supervision both manual and automated) but not contributors (yet). I guess they wouldn't qualify as not involved, but I'm also guessing that you wouldn't want me to ask a seven-year-old anyway. There's a note at the bottom of this list (and always has been) saying Keep it suitable for the level of a high school student. Now, we've always agreed I think that articles unsuitable for a children's encyclopedia do belong in Wikipedia. But there seems now to be a feeling that articles (such as this one) specifically suitable for a children's encyclopedia do not belong, which is going a bit further. Is this what I'm seeing here? Andrewa 23:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What you're seeing is another example of a small group of editors judging the utility, worth and "notability" of an article by their own subjective, unimaginative standards. This sort of knee-jerk "if it's not important to me it can't possibly be important to anyone else" chauvinism is fast reaching plague proportions among those who make it their business to live on VfD. I can think of plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons someone might want/need to access a list of common animal parts; that others apparently cannot is a concern, to put it mildly. --Gene_poole 08:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked you to try an experiment and report the results. So far, you have not done this. I said "anyone." That leaves the choice of "anyone" up to you. Let's have some real data points. I trust you to be fair in how you present the question and report the results. Gene_poole has oddly avoided saying in so many words that this list is personally useful to him, but is arguing on behalf of some unspecified and unidentified "those." He says it is "inherently" useful, but that's impossible; usefulness implies a user. So, Gene_poole, is this list useful to you, and if so what is the last piece of similar information you have looked up in Wikipedia? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your "experiment" is inherently flawed because it assumes that 1 person selected from the tiny sample of the world's population that comprises Wiki's editors is representative of everyone else in existence - and that is plainly ludicrous. Further to which, there is nothing whatsoever odd concerning my comments. This list is not personally useful to me today, however it may well be at some future juncture. I don't know. I have not voted to retain it because I find it immediately useful or relevant to my life; I am not so self-obsessed that I need to make judgements about the worth of factual data based on its immediate usefulness (or otherwise) to my own existence. I accept however that it may be useful to others for any number of reasons, now or at some future time. Because I'm not omnipotent or omniscient I don't know who, or why, or when I or anyone else is likely to find it useful. Those voting to delete however are stating with absolute certainty that it will never be of use to anyone, ever - which, unless they are omnipotent and omniscient - is a statement of unbelievably staggering chauvinism.--Gene_poole 15:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting logic on two grounds. Firstly, you demand data points from us, while providing none yourself. I think that the onus of proof is on those making a case for deletion. Have you any data points yourself? I'd happily try it on my nieces, but it won't be within the deletion period unfortunately. Secondly, you say you are happy to trust us not to invent this data, but you apparently don't trust us to be honest when we say we find the article useful. Andrewa 16:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I just checked again, and I don't see any place where you have said that it is useful to you. What I see is: a simple assertion that "It's a useful and practical index" and a rhetorical question, "Why is it less useful than other lists?" As nearly as I can tell, you are simply asserting that it could potentially be useful to some hypothetical people.IIs this page useful to Andrewa or not? If so, then you have named a specific person to whom it's useful. If not, then we're still left with a hypothetical. WIth regard to the burden of proof, this is a vote, and what I think you should be trying to do is to influence other peoples' votes. My own belief is: it's not useful. Telling me you think I should have the burden of proof isn't going to sway my vote. Maybe it will convince others. On the other hand, telling me that, say, the 5th Grade XQCAT Test for the State of Winnemac says Curriculum Point 262 is "Students should be able to tell which of the animal parts in table 234 are externally visible," that would sway my vote. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is useful to me. I'm a little surprised that I needed to say that explicitly, but I suppose I shouldn't be as it was my point that people do think differently. I did say below obviously some of us do find it useful, but again it seems you didn't understand that, and that's fair enough. See vocal sack for a new article (created some days ago) that would not exist without this list. This article has since led to the creation of a new Wikiproject. Andrewa 19:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ill-defined parameter for inclusions makes this list a mess-to-be. Can we list every single follicle or scale or feather visible, and from what distance are they to be considered "visible"? Bumps? Wounds or unique colours on individual animals? Impossible. Fire Star 15:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am unconvinced that this is encyclopedic in its current form, and can't at the moment think of a form that would be. Average Earthman 19:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Average Earthman. --Nought 23:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Needless listcruft (to coin a term). Delete. --Slowking Man 23:48, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. VFD is not for factual information. (But could we perhaps make this list hierarchical? :-) ) Kim Bruning 00:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Really? Please point to such a policy.  We delete factual material all the time -- non-notable websites, fancruft, bands with no recordings, etc.  Your contention is invalid.  RickK 00:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * This list is not a non-notable website, fancruft, or a band with no recording. Your contention that my contention is invalid is invalid. Kim Bruning 00:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There are other circumstances where factual information is still fit to delete. This is one of them. --Improv 08:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Especially if this list is made hierarchical, I can think of at least 5 good reasons of varying quality why it should be kept (non-english reader learning english, {future} bots (eventually), systematic way to check if all articles are present, quick reference for making a relevant wikireader/wikipedia 1.0, a good reference list for children reading wikipedia) and I can't think of any reasons why it shouldn't be. Is there any specific, valid reason why it should be deleted? Kim Bruning 11:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of those as good reasons. We're an encyclopedia, and all your suggested usage is, at best, metainformation. The information in this list is, for any given animal, patently obvious (to research for this article, we'd just need to go look at a cow), but also, given the multitude of external parts possible on animals, vast with the collection applying to no animal. Lists are sometimes encyclopedic, but a lot of the lists we see on wikipedia arn't. This one, by virtue of being by nature both obvious and not completable, is spectacularly not worth keeping. --Improv 20:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gravity is patently obvious too, all you need to do is drop a rock (which is more common than a cow). List of articles are all metainformation, consensus was that keeping lists is OK. Are you REALLY sure that externally visible animal parts are patently obvious? Aren't you partially contradicting yourself when you immediately claim that such a list would also be uncompletable? Finally you haven't responded to my comments wrt possible cleanup of the list (by reorganising it hierarchically, for instance). Kim Bruning 22:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Frankly, I'm really surprised people see value in keeping this. Everyking 04:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: People do think differently. Obviously, some of us do find it useful, and some don't. Is that so amazing? And that seems to be the only argument raised against it yet. Those wanting to delete don't understand how others find this useful, that's agreed I hope. Using words like crap doesn't enhance these arguments IMO. What puzzles me is that some people are so determined to find reasons to delete it that they have added ridiculous entries, see the talk page. Why is the idea of keeping it so upsetting? Andrewa 10:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I saw it as useful only after thinking of it in comparison to a broader list of anatomical terms. External/internal is an intuitive and reasonable breakdown. I have stemmed some of the repetitive items, please don't disrupt to prove a point. Gazpacho
 * Comment I just asked my wife to take a look at the list. She knows virtually nothing about Wikipedia. Her reactions, as accurately as I can relay them, were: "Hmmm. That's funny. They have 'penis' and 'genitals' but not 'vagina.'" I said, "Articles can be improved, I'm more interested in whether a list of externally visible animal parts is useful." She said, dubiously, "It would only be useful if they had more of the traditional animal names on it, like 'withers' and 'fetlock'". I said, "Yes, but let's say it was improved. Is a list like this useful to have in an encyclopedia?" She said, "Hmmmm... I can sort of see it being useful to people who were maybe looking for more of a dictionary kind of thing." I said, "So, is it reasonable to have in an encyclopedia?" She says, "No, not really, it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia." That's her response, for whatever it's worth as a data point. Yes, I was expecting her to laugh at the article, and, no, she didn't laugh at it. By the way, she does not know about the existence of Wiktionary. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting. The next thing I'd like to know is, does she know of any other lists in Wikipedia? It would be interesting to know what she thinks of them. Andrewa 05:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not especially useful on its own, but I can't find a better list to redirect it to, so I'm voting neutral for now. Oddly, there's not yet any article on gross anatomy either.  -Sean Curtin 01:16, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - unuseful list that will never be reasonably complete. No encyclopedic value as a navigation aid. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really don't see how this list can be a relevant portion of human knowledge.  Nearly everything is commonsense, anyway.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  06:20, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, Kim. Axl 21:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Keep. After the re-write and the merge with Superficial anatomy, it is much improved. Axl 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion post move of article
Oh useless list, is it? Ok, them's fighting words!


 * Moved to List_of_superficial_anatomical_features
 * Resorted (roughly) by zoological location
 * Introduced hierarchy
 * Identified homologues and synonyms

Basically, it's a totally different article from what's been voted on above.

Folks might still want to consider joining this article directly with Superficial anatomy if they like, using the latter as an introduction to the list. Kim Bruning 09:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Vote to keep this new version, since I just fixed it to be properly encyclopedic. Kim Bruning 09:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * vote remains delete. because entry remains useless, despite noble effort to the contrary.CB Droege 16:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain that. Among other things I'm noticing several missing articles, (as well as discovering that fish has no taxobox). This information was not as readily obvious before this article was reorganised. The article as it stands is now actually somewhat useful from a biological perspective. Notably, there wasn't a list for Superficial anatomy yet, like there was for Anatomy. Kim Bruning 21:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I did the idiot test too (New kind of vfd test ;-) ). I snagged my rather reluctant younger brother -who happens to be studying biology- and asked him what he thinks of the article and if it was useful or not. "It's anatomy right? How can that not be useful?". Hmm, okay, so I told him that some folks were considering deletion. "Well, it could use a some more polish, and it might be a bit more descriptive about some of the branches of the tree". (so that could be interpreted as "improve the article", which I told him) "So is there an article like this elsewhere already?"  (I told him I wasn't aware of any), "Well in that case I guess it's useful". Kim Bruning 23:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, actually since we're on it anyway, Anatomy now looks rather bland compared to this page. So by the logic so far, we should delete that too. (No I'm not seriously suggesting that! :-P ). If vote for new version is to keep I'll tidy up Anatomy some more too I suppose. What the heck. :-) Kim Bruning 23:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In fact, nobody seems to have really spent time tidying up this corner of wikipedia at all. I just found an omission or 2 on Anatomy even. And some glaring errors further down the line maybe. Kim Bruning 00:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, being a real crowd pleaser, I have merged and redirected to Superficial anatomy, so that now Anatomy and Superficial anatomy have the same form, oh, and that probably gets Superficial anatomy off of pages needing attention and unstubbed. 3 birds with one stone, how about that? ''"What more do you want, mermaids?" -- Robert Oppenheimer''

(That and I SHOULD have been writing a paper on bioinformatics, grrr! ;-) ) Not one more peep from you folks, or else! :-P Kim Bruning 00:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful. It's a good learning aid. -- Toytoy 06:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't find myself thinking 'what is this nonsense?' this time, so it's a lot better in that respect. I think it needs a lot of work still, but perhaps it qualifies as a week keep. Average Earthman 10:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Abstain given recent changes. Still think it's of questionable encyclopedicness, but am not still sufficiently sure to vote to delete. --Improv 19:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic. This is what expansion requests and cleanup is for.  Joe D (t) 13:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Superficial anatomy keep, no question. FT2 04:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.