Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species
Weak Keep'''). To anyone saying , which of the six criteria do you think this violates? On the flip side, in , the purpose of lists, I see it as qualifying in two of the three main purposes: navigation and development. In many cases, navigation and development both seem better served by the list of genera, and the species is simply duplicative, but for finding which species actually have articles, the species lists would take a 550 fewer clicks, so they do have an advantage for at least some uses. Kaldari's argument about maintainability is almost convincing, but 560 genera articles seem much harder to maintain than the 8 species lists; List of Salticidae genera says it hasn't been updated since 2008, so it's either incorrect or even more out of date than list of Salticidae species. A sensible approach to maintenance of the species lists might be to make a Unix script (somewhat like a macro, if you're unfamiliar with them), which would reformat another web page's species list(s) into the format for WP articles, and post the script in the Talk section for future maintainers to use once in a while. I might actually give that a go, except that both the species and genus lists seem like they're likely  violations, unless WP has permission from http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/INTRO1.html ''The World Spider Catalog'' to copy their data. Even lists/collections of facts are subject to copyright. If there is a copyright problem, itis.gov or another source could provide less comprehensive data
— User:Agyle, 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:LISTPURP||WP:COPYVIO (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)