Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predatory fish


 * 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, after the rewrite, consensus has moved to keep. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Predatory fish
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a redo of Predator fish, and was moved to this title during its recent AfD (just scroll down to the bottom of this page) in which the result was delete. I attempted to place a db-repost tag on this clear attempt to circumvent consensus, and it was removed. I tried a redirect to Fish, and was reverted. Here's the deletion rational; all fish are predators at some stage of their life cycle. This title is as inappropriate as "predatory snake" or "herbivorous deer". Abductive (reasoning) 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept is clearly used by significant authorities such as the FAO and marine biologists, as the cited sources indicate. The nominator's opinion on the matter seems to be OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did all the other people who commented on the previous AfD not count? Are their opinions worthless, or are some overturned by the move during the middle of the AfD, even the ones who said to delete after it was moved to the present title? I didn't even notvote there; this is about an end run around consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that the article would be acceptable with more substantial content. This expansion is now under way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was delete. People said that it was redundant to Fish. People said the title was inappropriate. You are flouting the AfD process. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a vote. The last two comments were headlined Delete but the comments of those editors were  supportive of further expansion or retention of the material.  Other delete votes were meagre per noms which we can discount. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the AfD is down the page, and you have discounted the opinions of the six people who commented there, and discounted the admin who closed the AfD as delete. So instead of going to deletion review or working on the article in userspace or the new article incubator, you have taken advantage of a page move during an Afd (which are not supposed to happen) to edit Wikipedia to make a point about deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Predator fish was deleted and I have no desire to restore it as the title was ungrammatical. My actions have been to develop this better article in which I have a particular interest as my household contains multiple large aquaria containing numerous predatory fish - one has to be kept in isolation as it is so voracious.  I did not participate in the AFD to which you keep referring and so am not responsible for it or its consequences.  We have a new article with new participants for which we must establish a new consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving the article during the AFD resulted in a redirect being deleted, not the actual article- and you claiming that 'justice was done' is nothing short of gaming the system. -- King Öomie 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is it said that justice was done? The only occurance of the word 'justice' are now thrice - two in this sentence, and one in yours. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the original Afd for this- which closed not twelve hours ago. Suggest this be handled as a wheel-warred undelete against AFD consensus. -- King Öomie 18:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kingoomiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieieieieieieieio. Obvious wheelwarring. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep or merge with fish. Very well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin This page has gone through an extensive rewrite since it was nominated. Ikip (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with the references of this article? Are they not valid, proving the term is used?  This article was created on 22:01, 7 August 2009.  It isn't the same article is the one that got deleted.  Two totally different things.   D r e a m Focus  19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per rewrite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow continued expansion. A perception of wheel-warring should not be cause to dismiss the potential of a decently notable subject, though it might be for cautioning the involved editors.  So let's not make this discussion about the editors, and actually look past egos and consider improving the encyclopedia.  In looking at the possibilities for expansion and growth as available in news, books, and schloar... the sheer volume of what is available shows notability of the subject.  I do not know what the original Predator fish looked like... and yes, its AfD made note of lack of content and sourcing.  It must be conceded that the current article looks like it is receiving care and attention and already is a well-sourced and growing stub... and THAT is what building articles is all about. Allowing the current article to remain and further grow further improves the project... specially since the term predatory fish is well covered in reliable sources. Wanting this out at this juncture almost seems an encouragement of a wheel war... and that does not serve the project.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I now know what that the earlier article as sent to AfD was a one sentence unsourced stub . The one being discussed here shares only the title... not the content. Grateful kudos to the editors who have made this now worthy of inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does not serve the project, in my opinion, is taking any two words that occur together, and stitching together an article around (sourced) instances of the words. As can be seen from the previous AfD, people were not saying that the article was bad, they were saying the concept of an article on predatory fish was flawed. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was THAT AFD, not this one. It seems apparent that perceived flaws of the earlier article spoken of at a different AfD are being properly addressed in this one. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article at the very least should be worked on in userspace until this AfD is resolved. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Improvement of articles while they are being discussed at AfD is proper and welcome per guideline, so that as concerns are brought forward, they may be addressed... just as is being done in ths instance. If all that was being discused was some stub that no one was allowed to improve, then there would be little point of a discussion in the first place. Its improvement serves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In its current state it should be fine.  A side note to Abductive's comment above (sorry, can't resist here), the good news is that somebody did not call this article something like Owl Flavored.  Now that, my friend, is word stitching in its finest. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Articles are never supposed to be deleted because they are flawed or because they are stubs, or even if they are unsourced as long as sources are available. Isn't that constantly pointed out to newbies who nominate articles based on their appearance? The fact that the article was nominated, notvoted to delete by all but one participant in the previous AfD, and deleted by an admin means that the main argument for its deletion--that it is a poor topic for an article, still stands. No matter how "improved" the article is, all the material belongs (and is already in) the fish article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a different article. Its been around for over a year now.  Deleting a different article with a similar name, does not mean that all articles with a similar title get deleted also.   D r e a m Focus  23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It's the same article, and it has been around only since August 2009. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter; the commenters in the previous AfD are talking about the very idea of an article on predatory fish. Read the previous AfD; people said "...Predator fish" is not a scientific term and the group does not form an actual taxonomic unit, like 'sharks' or 'tuna'. May qualify as neologism as well." "...redundant"  "...this is no more article-worthy than 'carnivorous burrowing mammal' or 'omnivorous waterfowl'" "...this is not an article. term could be mentioned as well in [existing] articles" Only one person suggested that it was the stubbiness of the article that was a reason to delete.  Abductive  (reasoning) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Abductive, dude, the horse is dead. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

People: The article was renamed during the prior AFD discussion. This is perfectly fine to do, and something that we even made the AFD notice deliberately safe against. It's the same article as before. Nja247 made a common closing administrator's mistake of deleting the redirect instead of the article where it now was. (There are closing administrator scripts that cause this mistake to occur, and this problem has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.) Xe has undeleted the redirect and favours the continuation of this AFD discussion. I've let all of the prior AFD discussion participants know of this discussion, so that they can come here and clarify their opinions for themselves, too. So no more discussion of whether or not this was wheel warring (It wasn't.) or underhanded (It wasn't.), and focus on the article at hand and how our policies and guidelines apply to it, please. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree the article now is in better shape. However I still cannot understand the rationale of an article devoted on predatory fishes as a category. Many taxonomic categories of animals feature predators -the combination of traits does not look unique enough to warrant an article depicting the intersection of the set of fishes and set of predators. It looks a bit like an article on "yellow birds" -they surely exist, they are referenced, but the combination of features is simply trivial. -- Cycl o pia  -  talk  01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Yellow birds. We also have numerous articles with a title of the form  fish such as White fish.  We do not consider such matters solely through the narrow prism of taxonomy as we are a general work which is intended to serve a

general readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your examples. The first is a redirect to a single species of bird. The second is a disambiguation list. If we want this article to be a disambiguation list of predatory fishes or a redirect to, who knows, Barracuda, fine. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that these articles exist, add value and should not be deleted. In the case of white fish, it is a disambiguation page because there are multiple good topics to be covered under this heading.  Britain used to have a White Fish Authority, as the matter was so important. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles are nothing like the article we're debating of. Comparing a redirect to a species of bird, or a disambiguation page, with a generic article on predatory fishes makes no sense. There is absolutely nothing here that cannot be merged or that isn't redundant with other pages. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the underlying articles such as Whitefish (fisheries term) are of a similar kind - an adjectival classification of fish which is much used in sources, just like predatory fish, coastal fish, pelagic fish, oily fish, tropical fish, etc. These articles are all quite proper here and proposing to delete any of them is not helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I made my argument here. The result was only delete in that very recent AfD because the closer, Nja247, did a head-count instead of analysing the arguments. Nja247's close that failed to delete the article and gave no summary shows a lack of proper attention. I would have opened a DRV if the close hadn't been malformed. Editors who supported deletion because it was a stub are completely wrong in their thinking: we do not delete stubs. The argument that "Predatory fish" is a non-notable topic is laughable poor, especially after I pointed to thousands of scholarly articles using the term. This is not a neologism or a random intersection. All the deletion rationales were totally faulty : turn your brains on, please . This is precisely the kind of blinkered thinking that drives away useful editors who contribute stubs on notable topics only to have them speedily deleted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences and Windows, calling arguments "laughable" and ordering people "turn their brain on" is not exactly WP:CIVIL. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you can look past my "incivility" to see my point, which is that these arguments are desperately weak. I rarely sail this close to the wind on civility, but deletion arguments deployed like this infuriate me. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saddened to have infuriated you, but the argument to delete I put forward is not that the topic isn't notable, but that it is redundant. If somebody wrote an article on "Feathered bird", the fact that there are Google Scholar hits for the term does not mean that an article on feathered birds is not redundant to birds. It only means that the words "feathered" and "birds" co-occur. I suggest reading the newly written User:FeydHuxtable/AfD is not a war zone. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Abductive, you should know I contributed to that essay as you were editing it at exactly the same time I was. I've struck out some of my comments, I was planning to anyway. My main mistake has been neglecting to improve the article enough, I forgot that reasoned argument alone is often not sufficient as editors may neglect read and consider the arguments of others before voting, and too many closing admins are happy to do head-counts. What I dislike in AfD discussions is dismissiveness and a lack of explanation, both of which have been displayed in abundance here. Cyclopia's initial "Delete, redundant" is a prime example. You need to argue why it is redundant and to what article. Where in Fish do we give a discussion of fish feeding behaviour? We don't. Where in Predation do we give a discussion of predation in fish? Again, we don't. If predatory fish is such a redundant concept, why is it that thousands of scientists feel the need to qualify "fish" with "predatory"? Comparisons to "feathered bird" and "blonde German girls" are poor analogies; the German blonde example is fatuous and "Feathered bird" gets more than 20 times fewer hits than "Predatory fish". Stubs like this should make us realise the gaps in our coverage. Instead, we delete them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any edit conflicts, so I guess I didn't notice. My feeling is that if that the fish article lacks info, it should be in there. Many times, people notice a lack of coverage and, perhaps fearing the sh^tstorm of WP:OWN they get for editing an established page, create a little article. Picture what would have happened if predatory fish had been created as a redirect first. Then users would be more likely to enter the fray at fish or its talk page to improve the article. As for the feathered birds example, I think you understand my overall point. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (2nd edit conflict I should have put the notice up then notified you. &#9786;) Ahem!  See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * F&W, the point is that "predatory fishes" have almost no distinct pecularity apart from that of, well, being predatory. We have an article on venomous mammals because venom in mammals is a phenomenon that evolved exceedingly rarely and which is notable by itself. But the fact that (some) fishes are predatory? Everything discussed in this article can be merged in fish, or in topics devoted to fish ecology. Really, there's not much difference between this and a general article on German blonde girls. There's full of German blonde girls, it is surely full of references on the specific subject, but the intersection of being blonde and being German is simply trivial -it would not contain more information than describing blondes and describing Germans. If you have proof of the contrary in this case -that is, that there is a peculiarity to predatory fishes that cannot be covered by articles on fish and on predation- I'll be happy to change my mind. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I mentioned in the previous debate, there is nothing wrong with the title or topic. If the article growth (which is the case) then let it grow rather than disrupt the process. If the article gets abandoned (as I thought previously and therefore voted delete) without useful content then put a merge tag, discuss and merge, there is even no need for Afd in this case. (That is also an answer to Fences&windows - we normally don't delete stubs, we merge them). I do have a concern that the recent article expansion is only a rescue attempt which will be abandoned as soon as the discussion is closed. Nevertheless, I stand by that this nomination is both unnecessary and premature. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not !voting at this point while I mull over the recent changes to the "new" article. I nommed the previous incarnation because it was clear (to me) that the article was an abandoned stub created by a one-time drive-by editor and that no work had ever been done on it. I decided against trying to improve the article because I couldn't think of anything that needed to be in it that wasn't already in (or should be added to) the article at predator. Speaking of which, either or both articles need a link to biomagnification. Which brings me to my central point: if this was an existing section of the predator article, would any of the keepers think it was time to fork the content into a more specific article? If not, why not just add this to the mother article? Losing a stub article is of no consequence to anyone if the information in it is simply put somewhere else. Matt Deres (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Our licence requires that, if we put information elsewhere, we maintain a history of the contributions. Such action is therefore best performed by merger rather than deletion.  Deletion is only for hopeless cases when we do not wish to retain anything at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You make it sound as if I'm proposing we copy Paul McCartney and paste it into The Beatles or something. We're talking about a couple of lines - at most - that could trivially be re-written as original material on predator. We have an decent existing article on ABCDEF; why is everyone so concerned about defending a poorly written article on "D"? Matt Deres (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a tactic that the ARS have developed to confound AfD discussions. It can be countered by making a note on the talk page of the receiving article stating who the authors were of the material in the deleted article. Don't you wish you had just redirected the stub to fish? That's what I'll do now if I ever find an article on Omnivorous rats or the like. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anductive, shame on you for besmirching 307 editors. If you have some personal issue with an editor or two, fine.... but don't denigrate the entire ARS membership over your personal issues over gudeline with one or two.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged and edited articles for the ARS, so make that 308. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then welcome to the family... but I hope you'll understand how I am unhappy to be painted above with a brush intended for a very narrow demographic. The methods of a few individuals are not the the methods of the majority. Fair enough statement? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Abductive, I thought you'd agreed that AfD wasn't a battleground, so what's this talk of tactics and countering them? Colonel Warden is saying that if material is merged then we don't delete. See Merge and delete, this is totally standard. ARS members didn't invent that, and there's been none of the kind of behaviour A Nobody deployed, which is what you're referring to. There's barely any information in Fish on predatory fish, so how would a redirect be appropriate? Redirects should only be used when the article contains information that the reader employing that search term will be looking for.
 * Oh, I think AfD is a battleground, but I don't mind as long as we abide by the rules of war, as it were. For example, I don't mind empassioned rhetoric, but I do mind wikilawyering. I get just as ticked off if somebody nominates a clearly notable topic for deletion as you do, but I try to educate the nominator rather than backing them into a corner. If it is true that there is barely any information on predation in the fish article, what course of action does that suggest? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt Deres, is our solution to imperfect stubs to improve them or delete them? The answer is that we improve them under normal editing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the article matter to you so long as the information is presented in a meaningful way and in a meaningful place? You're presenting a false dichotomy between growth and death, when I'm arguing for a transplant to a better garden. Matt Deres (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - last time I voted delete on the basis that we have predator and fish and this article added nothing that couldn't be gained by reading those two articles. Since then the article has been improved and now contains unique and worthwhile information - can't see any further reason to delete it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep its still a really poorly constructed stub, but it is more than the previously nominated article, and it may get more attention now. If its not significantly improved in the next few months, though, i would support another afd. I still have problems with the name, whether this information really belongs in other articles instead, the seemingly random collection of statements, which border on OR, but nothing to my eye which says it cant now be rescued and improved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The staccato, patchwork appearance of the article currently arises from the method of its construction - finding a reliable source about some aspect of predatory fish and then summarising it. This seems necessary when an article is under attack by carping critics in order to defend it against the charge of OR, which they will commonly make if one writes extensively and fluidly. If one should create a large article on a broad topic of this sort by just writing down everything one knows in a coherent manner, then the article is typically accused of being an essay.  This is an absurd criticism, with no basis in policy, but one still sees it here a lot. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Recent improvements make it clear that plenty of respectable journals use the term and there is an obvious difference between the fish described here and, say, an herbivorous fish like koi. -- B.Rossow ·  talk  13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would you want to delete the article? This is a major issue in marine biology. The article needs to be beefed up. Warrah (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the number of hits in Google Scholar, for instance, this is a going phrase, the nominator's argument about all fish being predatory at some point notwithstanding. "Predatory fish" is a technical term in wide use, and that makes it a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (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.