Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 in archosaur paleontology


 * 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 keep, borderline WP:SNOW. It is well noted that there are events discussed in this article that are not at all speculative. BD2412 T 00:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 in archosaur paleontology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an example of many similarly titled pages for which I can not identify any notability. In one sense this AfD is a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable. For the record, there is no article "2020 in botany" yet botany is a much larger field of scientific research. The issues I have is that there is nothing to indicate that the topic as a whole is notable. No sources are produced for "2020 in archosaur palaeontology" as a notable topic. All the individual entries are sourced to primary sources. There is no apparent discrimination about what is and what is not included. Everything is also speculative, at least for the next 30 minutes. It appears that anything is included if it is reported in the year 2020 and has any bearing whatsoever on archosaur palaeontology. The list is indiscriminate in its inclusion. A much better example list is at 2019 in science into which this type of content could easily be assimilated using only those entries supported by RS. I can see no relevant guidelines that suggests this list qualifies when tested against WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is one of the subpages of 2020 in paleontology, created in an attempt to avoid creating pages that are too long to navigate comfortably. It would be possible to incorporate all content from this and similar pages into 2020 in paleontology, but it would eventually lead to that page growing to an enormous size. As for the matter of the list being indiscriminate in its inclusion, as noted on the talk page of WikiProject Palaeontology, the scope implied by the title and header is broad (it doesn't, for example, restrict itself just to mentions of new taxa), and the discussions on the talk page of this project or elsewhere so far did not result in the imposition of any rules strictly regulating what type of research should or shouldn't be mentioned. In fact 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. I find it confusing that you contrast this page with 2019 in science, as the scope of that page implied by the title and header is, if anything, much broader and less discriminate in its inclusion. Finally, the claim that everything on the list is speculative is factually incorrect - no study on the list was formally published before 2020 (though they were announced earlier), and some studies are already specifically scheduled to be published in the issues of scientific journals that are scheduled to be published in 2020 (for example, there are already four issues of Cretaceous Research scheduled for 2020).--37.30.52.209 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anybody can explain what inclusion criteria are used here? For example, Thanos simonatti, was described in 2018 and listed in PBDB as described in 2018. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So far only the advance online version of the article naming it, not assigned to any published issue, was made available on the website of the Historical Biology journal. According to article 8.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such an electronic work must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. The advance online version of the article naming Thanos does not contain evidence in the work itself that registration in Zoobank has occurred, so it doesn't constitute a published work according to ICZN. Therefore, Thanos wasn't validly named in the advance online version of the HB article. It will be validly named once the article naming it will be published in a print version of one of the issues of Historical Biology.--188.146.102.58 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I understand the enthusiasm and committent to advancing the course of palaeontology but none of the arguments advanced so far address the issue of notability, the absence of RS for either the topic or the individual entries or, as re-iterates, the lack of any criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia asks for secondary or tertiary sources to support inclusion and requires multiple reliable and independent sources to attest to the notability of the topic. This has none of these. I think that this may be an excellent list, but just not a Wikipedia list .  Velella  Velella Talk  13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Methinks that this article has the right to exist, because every year paleontologists make a significant number of discoveries related to archosaurs, but we must clean it and replace some paleontological discoveries to articles about 2018/2019 in archosaur paleontology. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is no reason to exist. Every year biochemists make a significant number of discoveries related to ADAM17. We don't need a page every year listing the results of all the primary research papers. Pontificalibus 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Re:Velella: What, precisely, is your argument regarding the article itself? The arguments you bring up don't really seem to refer to the article as such, but rather to the content within the article. However, WP:GNG which you brought up yourself specifically state that notability guidelines in general do not apply to content within an article. Also, 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 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's very simple: the article as such functions as a list and therefore should meet the criteria of a list as under Stand-alone lists. There it is stated:

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


 * This criterion is met, as every taxon entered is obviously notable under any rational interpretation of notability.


 * Furthermore, "Chronological lists" are in the policy generally accepted as a valid category.


 * And WP:Notability notes:

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability


 * The informational purpose here is obvious.


 * Lastly, proposing an article for deletion as "a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable" is a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and therefore a forbidden action. If you want policy changed or established, this is not the proper way.--MWAK (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to either test policy or change policy. What I wanted to avoid was swamping AfD with a whole list of articles that all were equally lacking in notability. It was, and remains possible that I overlooked a notability criteria and I would be happy to be learn of such guidance. Nothing I have seen to date persuades me to that view however.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per 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 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This and similar lists do not list every research paper in the field. Furthermore, not only I doubt that your proposed solution would prevent one page for all paleontological research from growing too large and difficult to navigate, I doubt even more radical trimming than the one you advocate would prevent that. Even a list of all new fossil taxa described during a particular year and of nothing else would contain hundreds of taxa, if not more, every year. And besides, this is a complaint about the content of the page rather than about the page as such. The guidelines about the content that should be included listed in the article header in its current form are admittedly broad and general. The talk page of the WikiProject Palaeontology had at least one discussion about possible restriction of the criteria for included content, but it seems to have fizzled out without reaching any conclusion. If you find the article too inclusive, perhaps you should consider reopening that discussion. And in case of the discussion resulting in the imposition of new criteria of inclusion, perhaps 2020 in paleontology would, indeed, be sufficient (though, for reasons noted above, I doubt it would actually be the case). But this hasn't happened yet, and your claim that 2020 in paleontology is already sufficient is, at best, not self-evident.--188.146.99.74 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Paleontology is a very diverse field, with multiple disciplines that do not have much in common. Significant advances in one of these disciplines do usually not mean much (if anything) for the other disciplines. This is very different to most other fields of science. Granting each discipline a separate list is the best solution imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per MWAK. These lists are highly useful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per MWAK. These lists have always been useful. They fulfill the requirements to be a standalone list, and the subpages fit the requirements to be split off due to parent page length. Imagine putting all of the subpages of 2019 in paleontology into that single article, it would be unnavigable. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per previous users.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per MWAK et al. With respect to comments about notability and sourcing, 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 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That being said, I think there needs to be more stringent inclusion requirements for non-taxonomic research (e.g. non-taxonomic research must be supported by reporting in a popular source and/or be significant to the literature in some other way). 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 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, whenever I edited articles like the one that's discussed, I considered studies providing new information on fossil taxa in matters such as, for example, skeletal anatomy, soft tissues, life history, diversity, evolutionary relationships and geographical distribution to be significant studies. But I will admit that this came from my own judgement, as the guidelines from the article header are not detailed on that point, and the sheer vastness of the field led to the articles becoming very long. Seeing that the additions of new taxa are largely uncontroversial, I will be only adding those from now on until more detailed guidelines about the content allowed in such articles are implemented. Thank you for your comment--188.146.99.74 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It is worth noting that this resource is by far the most comprehensive list of paleontological research on the internet, and is used by actual paleontologists to keep up with the hectic output of modern research. Vetebrate paleontology as a field consits of probably less than 3,000 researchers and there is far more amateur interest in the topic than there is for some obscure part of biochemistry. 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 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * strong Keep, per MWAK, and with the notation that if you look at |2019 in archosaur Paleontology on Jan 4, 2019 Versus the Current version you can see just how much it grew over the year, so it will just need to be recreated in a month anyways. Also, there IS infact a 2020 in botany, correctly placed at 2020 in Paleobotany.-- Kev  min  § 20:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Abyssal (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep  for the above reasons. Paleontology is a big science with many directions. Furthermore, this article is very useful. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The function of this list as a navigational aid is clear enough for me. It's hard to argue that the topic of the list is narrow and that the list is "indiscriminate" (maybe not impossible, but certainly hard). We could argue over the inclusion criteria, but this isn't the forum for that. Nor is being "speculative" really a concern here, when the "future events" in question are things like a scientific paper, already accepted at a journal and scheduled for publication, being officially printed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting it because its too short and doesn't have enough sources yet is a bit foolish, as it is covering all that will happen in the coming year; if we delete it now its just gonna be recreated in short order. Its not particularly speculative, and it follows summary style (2020 in paleontology has this as a subpage, which keeps both articles of manageable length). However, once 2020 is over, and if the article still has few or no sources, then another deletion discussion could be warranted. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep has a navigational purpose as stated in the guide WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is useful for navigation and informational. Plenty will happen in 2020 archosaur paleontology, we just started the year. Eostrix (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2020 (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.