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 between keep and merge, certainly deletion is not the consensus. However, I am redirecting to List of pigs because all the material is currently there. Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of pigs over 1000 pounds[edit]

List of pigs over 1000 pounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A pointless collection of facts about animals that are only united by weighing a lot. Tavix (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get confused by the title. They're all notable, and they're all pigs. That's enough to keep them together. That they all weigh over 1000 pounds is a bonus. For a suggested solution, see my !vote below. The Transhumanist 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per trivia. Marlith ^T/C 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, that's pretty funny! But, yeah, you're right. Delete per nom. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak DeleteDelete or Merge: That's quite informative and well referenced. Anyway, I feel it needs to be deleted as per WP:NOT#NOTABLE.-Ravichandar 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I do agree this is pretty funny. The notable examples of this elite group already have articles of their own, anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The form of classification is pretty funny and unencyclopaedic. Animals could be classified by species, genus and other similar forms, but I dont think a list of pigs by weight is required. Also it isnt a big deal that someone has discovered a pig which weighs 1000 pounds or more. You cannot call that a notable achievement worthy of being recorded in an encyclopedia. -Ravichandar 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of pigs - They're all notable and belong on a pig list. Too bad they didn't clone these mothers. See also:
  • List of apes
  • List of historical bears
  • List of historical birds
  • List of historical horses
  • List of dogs (long live Snuppy!)
  • List of historical cats
  • List of historical elephants
  • List of monkeys
  • The Transhumanist 08:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, of course, they could be merged with List of historical pigs but it needs to be seen whether all the pigs mentioned in the article List of pigs over 1000 pounds are "historically important". The whole article seems to appear like a collection of newspaper clippings. Except for their discovery what other important incident were they involved in?? -Ravichandar 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word "historical" in the title means "recorded in history". If they are notable, then they are historical. Alternatively, the page name List of pigs could be used. The Transhumanist 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The responses of editors to this question will in part hinge on whether they think that extraordinary size is ipso facto significant. In response to any fact, one could ask “So what?”. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't concretely define notability, and bloodshed would surely ensue if it attempted to do so. —SlamDiego_←T 10:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two Monster pig and Hogzilla have articles of their own. But the rest dont even have one. The article could be merged with List of historical pigs or List of pigs by adding the first two and neglecting the rest-Ravichandar 08:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of historical pigs. —SlamDiego_←T 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed Marlith ^T/C 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the cited porkers with List of historical pigs, though I'll be sad to see something so wonderfully odd go. Hopefully merging will still qualify the article for Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination is just I don't like it. Article seems fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, Colonel Warden. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that the nomination does read like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The porkers are sourced as notable, and a good part of their notability hinges on their size. That sounds like a defining characteristic to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is ace and I see no point in getting rid of it! Skip1337 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom statement, which is basically what I said when I prod'éd the thing. The nomination is not an IDONTLIKEIT argument, listing together a collection of pigs (incidentally one of those pigs over 1000 pounds didnt even weigh that much as per the article) because they weighed a lot is an unencyclopedic clasification better suited for the guiness book of records. Viridae^Talk 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of historical pigs per User:The Transhumanist--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Complete. This article can now be redirected to List of historical pigs when the AfD closes. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I endorse Tavix's merge work here. —SlamDiego_←T 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What name would sound best for the article? A lot of the pigs are fairly recent so historical doesn't make much sense. I am leaning towards either List of pigs or List of notable pigs.Tavix (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: “List of pigs” invites misunderstanding, and good faith attempts to list every pig who ever lived. (Although I would love to see a list of Every Pig Who Ever Lived, it would belong elsewhere; not on Wikipedia.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I have moved List of historical pigs to List of notable pigs. Since the merge, a lot of the pigs arn't exactly what you would call "historical". Tavix (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FURTHER NOTE - moved List of notable pigs to List of pigs. "Notable" in titles is superfluous. The Transhumanist 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explained above (in a comment that Tavix deleted), this will prove problematic. I expect the title to eventually again refer to notable pigs or somesuch. —SlamDiego_←T 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, SlamDiego. I didn't mean to delete your comment, just wanted to edit mine. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why not? Whilst it is an incomplete list, it is interesting to anoraks like me. Traveller [by sea]. 20:05 UTC 27 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.60.216 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the merge is already done, and the results looks acceptable. --Salix alba (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep would have been fine, but Merge is okay too. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (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.