List of Cambrian genera: This is too broad a topic to reasonably maintain.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Organisms , and Lists Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not delete it.  This is a project that took several months to complete.  I just want to allow people to have easy access to the Cambrian genres.  I understand your annoyance and anger at me. I admit that I didn't listen to the warnings in the past.  But please just give me a chance.  I understand what I did before.  But give me a chance and I won't waste it.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Despite supposedly taking "several months to complete" this list is still very incomplete, just browsing through it I can find numerous omissions.  The last thing Wikipedia needs is more useless, half-baked lists.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there anything I can do to prevent it from being deleted.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  Your obsession with making lists like this has been an extreme nuisance to everyone else at WP:PALEO .  If any of the other "list of [geological time period] genera" lists get published I will nominate them for deletion as well.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What can I do then on Wikipedia if such a project as this cannot be realized.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 19:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you can go and recreate the list over at https://fossil.fandom.com/ instead?  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will try to do it.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 19:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Apologies.   I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft but did not realize there had already been a deletion discussion given Bestaoui.Mohammed created it under a different title which is disruptive.  They have several other drafts pending that likely need to be considered as well.  S0091 ( talk ) 20:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] im so, sorry for everything.  Sir!  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Give me a second chance.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 20:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] please Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 20:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bestaoui.Mohammed I don't think you are trying to harm Wikipedia.   Quite the opposite.   I think you are trying improve it according to your point of view but once editors have made it clear, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are not making improvements then you need to stop.   It is disruptive because it wastes Wikipedia's most precious resource, which is volunteer editor's time.   In this instance, between this AfD, the previous one and AfC reviewers, it is hours of time wasted including YOUR time.  Drop the stick and move on to other things.  S0091 ( talk ) 20:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for your understanding.  I'm sorry to have wasted your time.  I will try somewhere else.  As you said, I didn't mean to harm the quote and I am against those who do.  But I didn't want my work to end up in vain.  I'm sorry that all this time will not be put here.  Sorry again and have a nice evening.  And good continuation.  Bestaoui.Mohammed ( talk ) 20:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sorry, but as noted in the last deletion discussion, this is just not feasible.  It's not that there isn't such a thing as a rolling number of currently recognized genera present during the Cambrian (see e.g. [6] ) but the number is easily in excess of 1000, subject to lots of interpretation, and not realistically curatable on Wikipedia.  And in this respect, the See Also section gives me the shivers.  Covering 240k genera in this manner is not going to happen .  Let's not go there.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Elmidae; and like Elmidae, that See Also section terrifies me. You might get away with making lists of genera by, say, an Age (geology) or biozone, but not a whole geologic period. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As many adults know, the amount of work put into a project is not proportional to its usefulness or notability.  In this case, making a list of every small genera ( many barely attested ) about the Cambrian Explosion is akin to making a list of every Congressman ever elected since 1788, or every battle recorded in history.  Technically, each is notable, but a list of these sizes is unwieldy and not useful (or even misleading) for our core readership.  What's worse, is creating red links for other eras, epochs, and periods; it's a classic high school freshman mistake to assume that all such periods of time are of equal length and importance.  Thus this is better suited as a category, rather than a list.  I'm very sorry , but we are not a web host for a science project .  I have taught science at the secondary level for six years now, and I can assure you that there are many other places on the Internet for this sort of list, as noted above.  Bearian ( talk ) 13:59, 5 May 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.

Discussion outcome: delete