Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals Discovered In 1758

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 of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals Discovered In 1758

Obscure, mistitled list with no lists like it ("List of Animals Discovered in <year>"). Delete unless case can be made to merge and/or redirect to 1758 in science. —EdGl 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced...then only weak delete. The year of discovery of any animal is not really a feasible search point. There's no indication of the source of the data, so it fails WP:V. -- Scientizzle 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: article creator, User:Bill Darwin, is actually working on Animals Discovered By Year list, but 1758 seems to be the only one covered so far... -- Scientizzle 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on the point brought up by Scientizzle that the year of discovery of any animal is not a feasible search point. MBob 01:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No context is given. Discovered by who? What is significant about these animals/the people that discovered them? Seems like an indiscriminate list to me (WP:NOT). Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No context. What is important about 1758? Why not 1759? Or, is that the next one in the series? In addition to a list out of context, I'm pretty sure that amphibians had been discovered before 1758. Ted 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, no context, unsourced and unverified. Tychocat 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not a bad idea, but the undertaking would be massive, and the list is unhelpful. Adambiswanger1 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. --JChap 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I actually think this is one of the more interesting lists I've seen, although it certainly needs work. Maybe it would be better as a sub-category (except that the redlinks would be lost). I'm really torn on this one. It's listcruft, but at least it's neat listcruft. Kafziel 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The modern system of taxonomy was created in 1758. It appears that this may be a partial list of the 10,000-ish species that were classified by Linnaeus in that year. It looks like the original author intended to start with Linnaeus's original list, which is composed of animals discovered prior to 1758, and then create lists for each successive year based on what year they were described. See Animals Discovered By Year, which contains a link to this page and redlinks to pages for every year since.-- Vary | Talk 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context, nothing special. --Terence Ong 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Move. The article is a list of interest, but badly named and certainly needs other articles for other years to accompany it. 62.6.139.11 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. The author is plainly intending to go somewhere with this series of articles and I'd be for giving him six months to see how far his plan gets. I, for one, would be interested in the results, if this series of pages were completed (with accuracy and references). Someone should contact the author to indicate that putting the list in context, per Vary, would increase its general interest, and that references are essential for material of this kind. I'd agree the title should be changed. Espresso Addict 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See also the somewhat hopeless article Animals Discovered By Year. There is a horrible confusion here between "discovered" and "(taxonomically) described". For the species on the list, 1758 was the year when their first taxonomic description was published, and not when they were discovered. To the extent something like this is useful, it is better handled with categories. --Lambiam^Talk 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see my articles are unpopular and I will transpose the data to 1758 in science instead. If that's OK with you guys.(Bill Darwin 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete as requested by author. --Elonka 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what's the purose? MaxSem 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This seems more suited for Wikispecies than Wikipedia. Invitatious 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthbelow (talk • contribs)
• Delete I see no point to this article. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Linnaues like category might be a better idea.. Williamb 14:31, 13 June 2006 (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.