Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dipluridae species

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=List of Dipluridae species}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of Dipluridae species}})

This is effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that duplicates information in Dipluridae and its various genus pages. Keeping it doubles the amount of work to keep the wiki up to date, and doesn't add anything. There is a list of genera in Dipluridae, and a list of species within each genus (e.g. Linothele). The lists are not so long as to unbalance the articles and justify having their own page. Each genus in Dipluridae has its own article, so there's no longer a case to list species by family due to an absence of genus articles, as I understand was the rationale for this system. There is some precedence for deleting this based on the [http://WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_Salticidae_species_(2nd_nomination) List of Salticidae Species] deletion. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support In the early days of creating spider articles, there may have been a rationale for having lists of species by family, rather than including them in genus articles, but this is no longer the case. As the nominator rightly says, listing species by family and then again by genus creates redundancy, adds nothing, and makes maintenance more difficult, frequently leading to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Such list articles make updating the taxonomy more difficult and sometimes they get overlooked leading to inconsistencies. The list are useful when there there are few genus articles and the list unbalances the family article, but this isn't the case here. A list might be suitable if it includes other information (habitat, conservation, web type, etc) but again that's not the case here. When here are large numbers of species, lists at the genus level seems more appropriate.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support The family article has a linked list of recent genera, each of which has a species list; and for the fossil genera (where we don't have separate genus articles) it does list the species, which are few. This article adds nothing beyond these components, and thus seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.