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 delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predator fish[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost non-existent article. I foolishly PRODed instead of speedying and the PROD was removed without rationale or attempts to fix. "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. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Predator fish" isn't a neologism, it's a well-established phrase. These journalists were using it in the '50s:[1] It is scholarly as 2,670 groups of authors used it in a scholarly article:[2] A better title would be Predatory fish as that's used by 13,900 articles, but a slip of a letter in a title can be easily fixed. It's not a taxonomic grouping, but the article isn't claiming it is - it is a particular feeding behaviour. By this logic we'd delete Venomous fish and Electric fish, and we'd even delete Fish as that's not an actual taxonomic unit; fish are paraphyletic, what with the Tetrapods sitting in the middle. It's a stub, but that's no reason for deletion. Fences&Windows 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title is now Predatory fish. Fences&Windows 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the article contains no useful information. Also, this is no more article-worthy than "carnivorous burrowing mammal" or "omnivorous waterfowl". We have a page for "predator" and a page for "fish" - readers can presumably put two and two together to understand what "predatory fish" might mean. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything wrong in the title - it is common to tweak it to put emphasis on a certain topic or split up a large article, but. There is nothing valuable in the body. The author could always recreate it with useful content. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. add the one ref to article on food chain, or biodiversity, or predation, or overfishing, but this is not an article. term could be mentioned as well in one of these articles, or in an article on predators.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2009 (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.