User:Velella/sandbox/AfD appeal

Notes to assist with AfD appeal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 in archosaur paleontology


 * "...it is difficult (if possible at all) to instantly determine how significant particular studies are - for instance, a study on the age of a geological formation that doesn't generate much interest in the media in the long term might be more important for paleontology than a description of a new taxon that initially generated more interest." 37.30.52.209


 * "some studies are already specifically scheduled to be published in the issues of scientific journals that are scheduled to be published in 2020" 37.30.52.209


 * "Methinks that this article has the right to exist, because every year paleontologists make a significant number of discoveries related to archosaurs" Maksim Dolgun


 * "We don't need a page every year listing the results of all the primary research papers." Pontificalibus


 * "...please explain why in your opinion 2019 in science which you brought up (the article as such, not the specific contents of the article) fullfills the criterium of the notability of the topic, but the article we discuss doesn't.--188.146.102.58


 * "....the article as such functions as a list and therefore should meet the criteria of a list as under Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. There it is stated:   *Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. This criterion is met, as every taxon entered is obviously notable under any rational interpretation of notability. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. The informational purpose here is obvious.
 * WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2020 in paleontology is sufficient. The reason this is too big to fit there is that it lists every research paper in the field. We should only be listing major discoveries and providing wikilinks to new taxa etc. Listing all the publications is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Pontificalibus


 * "These lists are highly useful." --Jens Lallensack
 * "This is useful for navigation and informational. Plenty will happen in 2020 archosaur paleontology, we just started the year." Eostrix
 * "Keep per previous users". Lusotitan
 * " I think most users uninvolved with the project do not realize that the primary objective of palaeontology is taxonomy. One paper is sufficient to establish a new genus and/or species as being notable, pursuant to the aims of the meta-project WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, so long as the taxon meets proper requirements for the registration of the name. In addition, we are already being quite strict with what we consider to be notable: we, as a general principle, do not have distinct articles for species within genera, unlike most other projects under the meta-project. There is also a long list of dubious names which we do not grant status as separate articles, but instead address under List of informally named dinosaurs". Lythronaxargestes
 * "This in no way diminishes the validity of the article as a whole, which is first and foremost a curated list of new taxa." Lythronaxargestes


 * "..You shouldn't feel impeded to keep adding the other research. The guidelines are already there and they are crystal-clear. WP:Notability nowhere demands that notability is justified by a "popular" source. It states: Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY simply does not forbid such lists. Read it :o)".--MWAK
 * "I would personally like that you keep including all relevant research papers, as you seem to be able to find all papers of interest, which is really useful". Hemiauchenia
 * "Keep for the above reasons. Paleontology is a big science with many directions. Furthermore, this article is very useful". Maksim Dolgun

Dioscussion
 * Common selection criteria Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia

General research contains a list of research papers supported only by the primary sources Pseudosuchians as above Non-avian dinosaurs as above Tables at 'New Taxa probably OK provided that the primary wl was a blue link. Red-links suggest no notabilityand could constitute the whole article as Suarapod taxa confirmed in 2020 which probably would meet notability criteria. Birds contains a list of research papers supported only by the primary sources

Other inputs
Hello Velella. I hope you don't mind me butting in, but Materialscientist is a busy person and may not get around to a reply. Personally, I'm not a big fan of list articles, although in certain cases I can see where they do serve some purpose. This is not one of them. The two big problems I see with this list are 1.) it serves no encyclopedic function and is just a directory, and 2.) it is a directory of future events. I would recommend first studying WP:What Wikipedia is not, in particular WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL --including all the links within-- and that should help you formulate a very good argument for its deletion. Zaereth (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zaereth, for this and other posts. I actually emailed my thoughts on this to Velella quite some time ago; they broadly agree with yours. Materialscientist (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * still very much on my mind . Just waiting for editing to stop, which it should soon, so that there is no argument that it is a work in progress