Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of ceratopsian research

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of ceratopsian research

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

There does not seem to be be an independent "ceratopsian research", so fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a whole category of these: Category:Paleontology timelines; if these are all inappropriate, WikiProject Dinosaurs should be consulted. The main article would be Ceratopsia —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All those articles and the category are from the same editor. The Banner talk 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't give that much weight, as there's no indication he's anything but a valuable contributor. User has created more than 8,000 pages, mostly related to geology, paleontology, and other life sciences. To me that indicates a possible high level of expertise in the field. I can still see why these timeline articles have encyclopedic merit, and also, these are within the larger category of Category:Science timelines (not created by him), which has similar categories in other fields. Also, they're not stubs or placeholders, but fully detailed articles. Deleting would be a mistake; merging up to their parent article would be more appropriate. Hopefully some people from Wikiproject Dinosaurs can shed more light on if these would be better suited to merging. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This timeline is already more than 90% of the recommended maximum article length so is better suited to being an independent article. Abyssal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abyssal Yes, I agree. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple entire books dedicated to the Ceratopsia, like this one or this one. The former discusses the history reasonably extensively. Abyssal (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a reasonably well-defined area of study, and I think it's consistent with WP:LISTN. And it's a really nice article. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for some 30+ links to disambiguation pages... The Banner talk 08:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to unlink most of those for now; there is no indication that the cited paleontologists are notable. bd2412 T 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though perhpas renamed). A hisotry of the developemtn of a subject is certainly worth having. I am unhappy about the number of redlinks, but that is capable of being cured. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creation of timelines and lists are among the WP:OR which Wikipedia encourages. The information in this timeline is backed by WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG is primarily meant to counter the problem of people promoting either themselves or their wacky theories. It is, of course, not intended to counteract the covering of entire fields of established science, which to the contrary is highly desirable. This article is basically a chronological listing of research and can best be judged by the standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which make clear that is suffices that the individual items listed are each notable in themselves, which is obviously the case here. Most of the paleontologists mentioned have, as eminent scientists, their own articles but simply have to be linked properly yet, which will solve the disambiguation problem and most of the redlink pseudoproblem.--MWAK (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 08:34, 21 May 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.