Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authors of names published under the ICZN

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The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). — The Earwig (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors of names published under the ICZN

List of authors of names published under the ICZN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unlike in botany, there is no standardized list of zoologist names and abbreviating names is not recommended by the ICZN. The list presented here is completely arbitrary (there are thousands of authors of names published under the ICZN, including hundreds of new authors every year, most of which aren't notable). This list offers no criteria for inclusion and no criteria are evident. It also incorrectly suggests that zoological author names are supposed to be written with no spaces. (Although there is no standard, such a practice is rare in modern sources.) The list seems to have been created under the mistaken assumption that zoological author names follow the same conventions as botanical author names, which isn't true. See Author citation (zoology) for more information. Nosferattus (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Disclaimer: I'm a Commissioner of the ICZN, so have some connection to the matter. First, I think you are making assumptions about the purpose of this list. The primary purpose this appears to serve is as a massive disambiguation page for notable authors of animal names, and that in and of itself has enough utility that it merits keeping; it is not exactly the same function as just a list of all notable zoologists. Second, while I agree that there is no obvious reason to delete the spaces between initials and a person's name, this is something that could be fixed by editing, since it was done arbitrarily by a single editor back in 2009/2010, without discussion. I agree it seems pointless, it clearly has nothing to do with standard practices, and I doubt anyone will object if, e.g. "C.C.Baldwin" is changed back to "C.C. Baldwin", as it was listed prior to 2010. Again, you are confusing one editor's arbitrary decision with some sort of standard policy, and while it is a good reason to edit the page, it is not a reason to delete it. Third, if there are omissions of notable authors, then again that is something to be addressed by editing - the fact that the list is incomplete is not a good reason to delete the list entirely, nor should we be concerned about the non-inclusion of non-notable authors. Dyanega (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this! If the article is kept, what do you think the scope of the article should be? Surely "authors of names published under the ICZN" isn't a good scope for an encyclopedia list. Literally anyone can publish a name under the ICZN, even if they have no qualifications (i.e. "taxonomic vandalism"). What about "List of notable zoologists"? Nosferattus (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of notable zoologists who never describe any new taxa. The point I think you're getting at is that you don't like how the page is titled. However, I don't know that "List of zoologists that have described new taxa" is a better title, even if it is more explicit. Note also that there is at least one alternative title that redirects here: "List of zoologists by author abbreviation", which is an even more misleading title, since it does not restrict the list strictly to authors of new taxon names. Even an alternative title like "List of zoological taxonomists" would be similarly misleading, because you can publish lots of papers on taxonomy without ever naming anything. My point is that the scope of this particular list is unique, and very particular. It just happens that there is no simple way to give it a title that is both accurate and shorter than the existing title. Again, if you feel that the page lacks a clear statement of its circumscription, then I would suggest this could be addressed by adding one or two more sentences. I can see how the present text - "This is a list of authors of names published under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature" is NOT especially explanatory to a non-specialist reader, and this could certainly be improved. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: I took your suggestions and rewrote the lead sentence of the list to be more descriptive and circumspect, and also re-added the space before the surnames. I hereby withdraw the deletion nomination. Nosferattus (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2021 (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.