Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birds of the Indiana Dunes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   no consensus. User:Postdlf presents sources that clearly prove the notability of the topic. That said, there is concern over whether the current content of the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, although there is no consensus that it is not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Birds of the Indiana Dunes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, unnecessary, and unneeded list. There are no other state parks that have a bird list for it (Source: Category:Lists of birds of the United States). There is a precedent for National Park lists, although the only parks in that list are Yellowstone and Glacier, so I would say this is not notable. In the off-chance of someone looking for birds here, they can go to List of birds of Indiana. Tavix | Talk  05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This article would be very useful to a person visiting the park or living nearby who was interested in birds. However WP-wise it seems to fall into the area of a guidebook or how-to for birdwatchers, not something that would be of general interest. Borock (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article already shows that there are at least two books entirely about just this specific topic (including one from a university press, no less). And page 12 of this source lists more than half a dozen journal articles also just about birds of the Indiana Dunes (as can clearly be seen from the titles listed there). I found a book about the Indiana Dunes that also discusses its birds in depth, and even if all of that were not enough I would expect other books on the region/parks to do the same. So discounting the clearly incorrect ipse dixit "I would say this is not notable", I'm not seeing anything left on the deletion side except WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST or "I'm not personally interested in this." postdlf (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am personally interested in birds. However the article is just a list of species.  If it was prose about the ecosystem I would vote to keep.Borock (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – per postdlf, notability means mainly whether enough RS material exists to write a substantial article. In this case it clearly does. Notability doesn't mean "I'm interested" or "of general interest". The nonexistence of similar articles that could be written is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Also list articles have advantages of their own that normal articles don't have (e.g. navigation WP:AOAL). It could be merged to the two articles that link to it (WP:MANYLINKS), but it's too large for that (WP:ARTICLESIZE). From a policy standpoint, seems like the best thing is just to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.