Deletion of List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species

Comment: per . There are entire books written on the topic (e.g. the ''Fossil birds from late Quaternary deposits in New Caledonia'' cited in the article), proving this meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:LISTN)

Comment: There  are innumerable 'list of...' pages without citations to blue-linked articles, and this one doesn't need to be blown up because someone doesn't happen to like it. It meets , and I support the keep rationales  of 86.185.214.139 and {{u|Finnusertop}}.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It is neither synthesis nor original research to compile a list of defined species by a defined time period based on known scientific data cited in numerous reliable sources. Since |all species are de facto presumed notable, the presence of redlinks on the list is not an issue. Quaternary|The informal term "Late Quaternary" refers to the past 0.5–1.0 million years. Therefore this is a list of all scientifically defined and known extinct birds which lived in the past 1 million years. For obvious reasons it is recorded in reliable sources whether a particular species in extinct, and when it lived. The data of when it lived is reliably known in all cases from the geological context of the fossil it is recorded from, or where multiple fossil records are found, from multiple sources. The arrangement of the list is strictly by scientific classification, and therefore is the most unoriginal format imaginable, and easily verifiable from any database of taxon information. Regarding the sources in the article, these are currently insufficient and provide only a brief overview of the subject. To correctly source the article would require typing each name into the appropriate database to get inline citations for each list entry. Of course this is a lot of effort, however Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress|Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is unreasonable to expect this to complete itself in a week. And finally, many articles are bluelinked, the articles themselves already contain appropriate citations to verify their scientific classification, period, and extinction. Therefore even a cursory inspection of the list is sufficient to show that it is accurate. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the entire list, but what I have checked is correct and validly arranged information. Special:Contributions/86.185.214.139|86.185.214.139
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES)

Comment: as per  and . This is not OR and while it should be better sourced, that ids not a valid reason to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:PRESERVE)