Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Kansas/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by PresN 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of birds of Kansas[edit]
List of birds of Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Kansas
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
This article has precisely one inline citation, which is in the "fictional" section at the bottom of the list. The rest of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point there. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, and less reader annoying to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.