Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of spiders


 * 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. The calls for deleting this article, while well intentioned, seemed to rely upon the fact that this article is problematic rather than failing any specific policies, and the consensus is that this material should be kept, albeit likely revamped. Shereth 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

List of types of spiders

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

The article is misnamed as listing "types" - as Biological type is a different idea. If the list intends to be of species, then this may be a little too large. If it is a family level introduction - then there is already a suitable article at Spider taxonomy. Shyamal (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional note. The possible interpretations of this article lead to a duplication of content that belongs either in Spider or Spider taxonomy, both of which are fairly well defined. Also see the role of Category:Lists_of_spider_species for structured lists or indexes to species articles. Please also see Content forking. Shyamal (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is hopelessly incomplete and is not a logical place to sort out spider hunting strategies.--Wloveral (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * please indicate the more logical place for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The information is better given in other articles.Redddogg (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which other articles? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination and comments above indicate that this discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If there's a problem with the title, then this is changed by a move, not by deletion.  If the article is incomplete then we work on completing it.  If the material is better elsewhere then we merge it.  Not a single valid reason has been provided for deletion. And a look at the horrid alternative of Spider taxonomy indicates that allowing specialists to own this topic would be a mistake.  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and we all have some interest in spiders. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first four point. The problem is just that the title is unclear as to the subject covered, so no one can really fill the contents or retitle it when the aim is unclear. As for merge, there is little substance here that is salvageable for use for instance in "spider" and this was discussed on the talk page and this has under a proposed deletion tag for almost a week. As for the last bit - I agree with your view that the article on Spider taxonomy is not very well written and accessible as it stands. but that can definitely be improved. Shyamal (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea is not bad, but yes it should be renamed and reworked extensively. Spiders are notoriously hard to identify for laypeople (with many not even realizing they're not insects...), so grouping them into phenotypes or such could be helpful for some. I don't like the first part of Spider taxonomy either (but i do like the table at the end, which i created ;); it looks like somebody started it half-heartedly and then abandoned it. suggestions: not a list, some 'splaining text is needed (for example to point out that orb web spiders are not a monophyletic group; Nephila is not Araneidae, and the totally unrelated hackled orb weavers (Uloboridae also construct orb webs). hmm, the very interesting Deinopidae do not occur anywhere. ah, look what i've found: Identifying spiders, another one of p0m's abandoned pages. if somebody wants to merge the two pages, and really work on it, be my guest :) --Sarefo (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Renamed to what ? I suggest that it is going to be Spider taxonomy again or it is a section within spider - and there is nothing much to take from this article into the new location, nor much reason to add a redirect. Hence this AfD, which really is a last resort, one that should not hurt anyone. Shyamal (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - well "type" may be misused in the biological sense it is used properly in the more common sense of the word. Rename if that is really a problem --T-rex 15:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the notion that laypeople need a "how to" guide to ID spiders by type, which this article seems to be inventing, is flawed. An encyclopedia should not "dumb down" content, for that is how we all stay dumb. Fails WP:No original research. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep good idea to have a non-technical page. This will when done right resemble a taxonomic key, a perfectly acceptable nontechnical type of publication which divides things up in any convenient way, and helps people name the species they have in mind. Scientists use them too for practical work. DGG (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is something like that out here . The other Identifying spiders article also points now to spider taxonomy- . If taxonomy is sounding too complex, that article could well be renamed as "spider classification". Shyamal (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Concur with DGG above. The list meets WP:LISTS criteria and will be a useful, non-technical approach to understanding spider types.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 16 June 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.