This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levivich (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 16 November 2018 (→List of moths: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:28, 16 November 2018 by Levivich (talk | contribs) (→List of moths: keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)List of moths
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- List of moths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are about 160,000 species of moths. I'm not sure what the purpose of this list of less than 200 serves. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains 01:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tentative keep and rename. The "Moths that are of economic significance" section is a valid list, if it can be sourced in some reasonable way. Pburka (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as unmanageable and undesireable fractional list, although I suppose that the split-off for pest species, suggested above, might have some utility. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This passes notability - moths and lists of moths has received "significant coverage" as even a brief review of the hits on Google Books shows (e.g., https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FgWGDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=moths&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEqpnUyc7eAhUR3RoKHXCxDQcQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=moths&f=false ). The list might be unwieldy but then this is handled by sub-headings and, ultimately, if the list grows too long, by splitting the list up. The objection that this is a partial list makes no sense - the author is just listing those with some degree of prominence, something which is endorsed by the style-guide. List of snake genera is a good example of how to handle this kind of subject matter. About the only reasonable objection is that Moths already includes a list, but there is nothing wrong with expanding on it in a separate page. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Waltzing into this discussion with "this passes notability" is a great way of demonstrating that you did not get what the problem is. Of course moths are notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Politicians are also notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Can you guess why we don't have a List of politicians? - As noted, there is an unlistable multitude of species. If you want a structured listing, Category:Moth_taxonomy is all ready for you. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The list of politicians point is a WP:WAX argument. Moth Taxonomy might be a good point if you want to argue duplication (in which case the solution would be to merge, not delete) FOARP (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing worth merging here; it is just a list of moths with no justification as to why some are included and others are excluded Spiderone 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- The list of politicians point is a WP:WAX argument. Moth Taxonomy might be a good point if you want to argue duplication (in which case the solution would be to merge, not delete) FOARP (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Waltzing into this discussion with "this passes notability" is a great way of demonstrating that you did not get what the problem is. Of course moths are notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Politicians are also notable, we have thousands of articles on them. Can you guess why we don't have a List of politicians? - As noted, there is an unlistable multitude of species. If you want a structured listing, Category:Moth_taxonomy is all ready for you. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - way too broad to qualify for a list; either this is a complete list of moths (which would clearly be absurd) or it is an incomplete list of moths (showing bias towards particular species depending on what the article editors prefer) Spiderone 22:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list being incomplete. The style-guide even encourages you to only include significant examples in a list if including all the examples would result in an overly-long list. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Repurpose as a list of lists of moths. The numerous lists of moths really need to have a top level list. SpinningSpark 22:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The List of lists of moths is really Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, which also includes the butterflies. A list of just moths would not make sense as even though moths are different from butterflies, they aren't really a separate thing taxonomically. Hope that helps. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not it isn't. All the lists are organised by location, not taxonomy. Except for this one, which should be the top level list. SpinningSpark 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's also Lists of Lepidoptera by region. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Region =/= taxonomy FOARP (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but this page still contains lists that do not fit into that and are still worth keeping per WP:PRESERVE. That information should be preserved in some form. The largest moths, economic moths etc could be moved to separate pages, which still leaves a role for a "list of lists of moths" (or even "list of lists of lists" of moths). SpinningSpark 08:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's also Lists of Lepidoptera by region. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not it isn't. All the lists are organised by location, not taxonomy. Except for this one, which should be the top level list. SpinningSpark 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- The List of lists of moths is really Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, which also includes the butterflies. A list of just moths would not make sense as even though moths are different from butterflies, they aren't really a separate thing taxonomically. Hope that helps. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to "List of notable moths," organized by reason for notability (as it is now). That has encyclopedic value. Especially where there are so many moths, it would help to have a distillation of at least some of the most "important" or "famous" moths, however you want to describe it. Properly sourced, of course. Levivich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)