Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions

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. Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions[edit]

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

First, this is arguably of interest to some people (just as a list of things owned by Elvis is of interest to some people), but essentially trivia and difficult to ever complete, and fails WP:LISTN. All taxonomists name taxa, and this seems like simply trivial detail for the sake of listing: while individual biographies may list taxa named, I don't think "scientists and the taxa they've named" is commonly discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are thousands of ornithologists in history and over 10,000 named bird species (not to mention countless subspecies, taxonomic synonyms, genus names, and other named ranks). --Animalparty! (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This info should be on the individuals' pages, and I don't see much point in reproducing it in lots of little tables here. If this page was converted into a list of ornithologists who have named taxa, with links to their articles, that might merit a keep (although is that information elsewhere?). I'm reluctant to argue delete if there's a reasonable possibility of transforming the page into something useful (WP:AfD says a page shouldn't even be nominated if that possibility exists). But as it stands, there's only the germ of an useful page here. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to have to agree with Animalparty here. This just isn't the way this information is organized anywhere else. Obviously, our articles about various taxa indicate their naming authority, and our articles about the taxonomists ought to mention at least a few of the important taxa they authored. I can't quite justify calling this a "trivial intersection", because that isn't exactly why this isn't ever done this way. But it isn't, and I think one way or another, this fails WP:LISTN. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Unfortunately, since its such a well laid-out article. There is a List of ornithologists, and the added information in this list is more appropriate in the individual articles of the ornithologists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 14 August 2015 (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.