Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of seafood


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of types of seafood

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is an out-of-date data dump from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch. This seems an unreasonable use of their data, if not an outright copy violation. It would be better to leave the Monterey Bay Aquarium to update and present their own information, which many pages in Wikipedia link to. Geronimo20 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: a mere list of seafood, like telephone directory information, lacks sufficient originality to be copyrightable. Apart from perceived copyright problems, it's a perfectly reasonable topic for an article, and one for which presentation here confers the substantial advantage of wikilinking. Sarah182 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Sarah182's argument that a list of types of seafood is not copyrightable because it does not entail creativity on the author's part, and facts cannot be copyrighted. Moreover, this is a perfectly legitimate topic for a stand-alone list. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually it is not true, as Sarah claims above, that this is just "a mere list of seafood". The article evaluates the extent to which various seafoods are or are not okay to eat, based on sustainability and other criteria researched by Seafood Watch. These are Seafood Watch's recommendations, and I would have thought that lifting their recommendations on a scale like this like this would be invading their rights in some way. The other problem is that the list is not kept up to date, and there is no guarantee that it will be kept up to date. Seafood Watch constantly update their recommendations, and the Wikipedia article is attempting to mirror them, but is not keeping pace. Thus, the article is misrepresenting Seafood Watch. I think the whole idea is very disrespectful to Seafood Watch. Other articles, such as sustainable seafood advisory lists and certification, explain what Seafood Watch is about and link to their site. This seems to me how it should be handled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but Geronimo20 is right about the content of the article. It needs to have all of the Seafood watch stuff pulled, though the list in and of itself is neither copyrightable nor unencyclopaedic. Handschuh-talk to me 10:49, 5 January 2010 (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.