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. Star Mississippi 14:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of species described in 2022

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of species described in 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also including in the nomination:

This is too broad a list topic. According to [1], around 18,000 species are described every year. We simply can't cover all of them in a list like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Organisms, and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like there is a template {{Species description}} (producing a jolly navbox "[Year] in species described", presumably to fit in with "[Year] in Art" etc. ...huh) - according to which there is another half dozen articles of this sort. Any decision should apply to those as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the modern ones, but I don't know the number of species that were described around the years 1921 or 1766 (which is likely to be lower), so I've omitted them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other similar articles. A category will suffice (and not be as bloated). Why? I Ask (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including 1921 and 1766. There are 658 articles in Category:Moths described in 1921 (and that's just the species for which Wikipedia articles), so I'm pretty sure a full accounting of all species described in 1921 would make an unmangeably large list. The number of species described in 1766 might be low enough for a list, but the existing list is been sitting around for 15 years with no meaningful effort to make it complete. Plantdrew (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Esculenta (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well-meant, but this lists are just too way broad in scope to be maintainable or even easily usable, per nom. Best left for the category system. (I would include 1766 as well.) Choess (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the category system is how this sort of thing should be dealt with. If the "X described in (year)" category hierarchy is too bloated to navigate, that would be another discussion entirely, but making lists is not the solution. Dyanega (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability isn't an issue and there's a valid navigational purpose. It's not a WP:NOT issue, either. The main objection seems to be they're too large. when lists get too large, we can split them up. These are not yet too large, but can easily be split up as they expand. This has already been done with our category tree as pointed out above. Why would a list of 658 moths described in 1921 be an inappropriate list? If it gets unwieldy, break it up again (rather than nominate it for deletion). If/when these lists are complete, they would be too broad, but it seems fine to have a central list until that point comes. "Manageability" isn't a big concern when dealing with fixed, finite lists. There's work to set them up, sure, but then what is there to manage? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhododendrites: it is true that we could split these up into "List of mammals described in 2022" or even more specific like "List of rodents described in 2022" and those would be notable, but I think the larger question is... are we really serving readers better with that approach? We already have many categories of species described by year and it's dramatically easier to maintain than a list. With tens of thousands of species each year, it's definitely incomplete but easier to fix than these woefully incomplete list pages. In practice, if readers want/need a list of species described each year the categories are more expedient way of getting it to them. Plus, in practice most list of species articles at the genus or family level aren't any better than an alphabetical category. Steven Walling • talk 18:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List of species described in 2012 and List of species described in 2022 appear eligible for Speedy Deletion under G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex65mya. Jack Frost (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too broad in scope to be reasonably manageable as a list article, if it actually included the entire list of species described each year. These can and should continue to be categories. Steven Walling • talk 18:30, 5 November 2022 (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.