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 no consensus. This article would suck if converted to a category, and Burntsauce doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 09:38, 11/4/2007

List of marine parks with Orcas[edit]

What can I say, this is a list of theme parks with Orcas alright. We're not a directory service for this sort of information, please delete. Burntsauce 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever fixed this for me, I initially copied the wrong template code so it was linking to another article (not related at all to Orcas). Burntsauce 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand your reason for deletion, but anyways this article just needs to be referenced and improved.

Delete now that I see the correct article, it is not terribly notable and unreferenced.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ummmm......per above comment. - Rjd0060 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much better (lol). Delete as OR and, well, a pointless list. Use a phone book or other "directory". - Rjd0060 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since deletion reason makes no sense whatsoever. Smashville 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...This makes sense now...I don't see why this couldn't be included in List of marine parks or something like that. It's a little weird that List of marine parks wouldn't exist yet, but this one does? Smashville 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator evidently messed up the template when nominating the article. He accidentally listed the pagename in the template as a different article. The keep !votes sbove my comment are all on a different article, The Batten Twins, another article that the nominator brought up for deletion. That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Batten Twins. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the items in this list could be included in a list such as List of marine parks, I don't see why we would need a separate list for marine parks with orcas. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random, non-notable criteria. I would agree that a list of marine parks may be appropriate, but to have different lists for marine parks based on individual animals they house? That seems to be random.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random, non-notable criteria? Being rabid when it comes to deleting listcruft is one thing, but don't be absurd when it comes to talking about scope here. This is about as specific a criteria as it gets without being too limiting. It's only a list of marine parks that keep one species, and this is a notable and unique issue. Keeping orcas is a hell of a lot more notable and controversial than keeping many other marine mammals. VanTucky ^Talk 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable list. Orcas are a key attraction species to marine zoos. Many have names and are notable in their own right.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valuable list with a very clear and finite scope that is obviously verifiable. This would not be as effective as a category. Needing referencing is not the same as being unfit for encyclopedic treatment. Not all lists are automatically unencyclopedic. VanTucky ^Talk 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep by virtue of the fact that this list is what called my attention to the fact that several (4) Orcas once part of the Sea World "family" were sold (3) or on breeding loan (1) to foreign marine mammal parks. I've been (trying to) clean up some of the individual captive Orca's entries here (though these pages themselves get flagged occasionally as non-notable--everyone thinks all of SeaWorld's whales are named Shamu, apparently) and this page helped establish where some of the Orcas I was familiar with (as a park guest in a city that has an active, breeding population of captive Orcas) had been moved, or indeed, a couple that had died (by virtue of not appearing on the list, for example.) Anyway, I'm in the weeds. The data itself is useful, but as long as it got carried into the right articles, I could live with this page going away, I guess. Not sure I see the need, though, especially if this gets sourced properly (I have emails out to a variety of captive Orca-related site owner's, as well as a couple authors of notable books on the subject.) - Ageekgal 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are roughly only 45 surviving captive Orcas in the world, and nearly all of them perform or have performed choreographed, daily shows for many millions of people (setting them apart from, say, captive gorillas or whatnot.) This isn't a list of monkeys in Zoos, or (far less rare, also) dolphins and porpoises, etc. - Ageekgal 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep The practice of keeping orcas in marine parks has attracted a significant amount of media and public attention. We should be improving our coverage of cetaceans in captivity. This list isn't a magnificent article by any means, however I have a feeling that deleting it would be a step in the wrong direction. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize -if that's an option: this should be a category? Greswik 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.