Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical Sylviidae species

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical Sylviidae species

List of historical Sylviidae species (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)

No reason why we need a list of species that used to be classified in a family? Taxonomic changes that significantly split up families aren't uncommon and we don't need to maintain lists of what used to placed in something. This isn't even accurate, it sets an arbitrary date of 2020; Sylviidae is a notorious wastebucket taxon and used to have over 400 species. AryKun (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Lists. AryKun (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the detailed history of the family can be included in the current Sylviidae, in Parrotbill, and in old Sylviidae's other successors I have no objection to deletion. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, including the history of a taxon in the taxonomy section is standard for any article. It won’t have a massive list, of course but it will mention that so and so families used to be placed within the Sylviidae and were split out in so and so year. AryKun (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Might have to go as deep as genera. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      For wastebasket taxa that used to have hundreds of species in them, listing genera that used to be in them is of absolutely zero use to the reader. It just clutters up the page with pointlessly detailed information when we could just say that it's been split up into so and so families. Sylviidae used to have over 70 genera and currently has 2; I fail to see how named the other 70 would help a casual reader of the page. AryKun (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a classic example of WP:LINKFARM and based on that either it should be deleted. Additionally, IOC taxonomic sequence on this page doesn't meet with the list on Sylviidae so raises question based on WP:V. Nanosci (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Well, we can't criticise a list for being list-like, or for having its members bluelinked, that's the nature of the beast. But there is no value in having a basically uncited list of species, begging the question of when (and how often) the old group has been split and reorganised — a topic that might be of interest, but which would not be well described with a list. Far better just to have articles like Sylviidae which can have their own history and phylogeny sections, discussed, illustrated, and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (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.