Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-fronted Amazon

Blue-fronted Amazon was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep as improved. Cool Hand Luke  08:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One line substub created by anonymous user.

NOTE: As the content has changed significantly since this was originally proposed for deletion, I did not feel that the consensus to delete was actually targeted at the present version, and so at a minimum the discussion should continue. I have accordingly relisted it. Postdlf 00:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - UtherSRG 15:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect, or somthin' It's a kind of parrot.  Terrapin 17:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not much point of redirecting, I reckon, but I must say that I was disappointed that this wasn't about Pict women who went into battle topless. Geogre 18:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - move content to Amazon parrot, and change Amazon parrot to include this content under the species list. Ben@liddicott.com 21:48, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless there's significant information to be written about it, merge with Amazon parrot. Nadavspi 00:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --*drew 00:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just NPOVed and expanded it to an acceptible stub. D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 18:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worthy stub now. Postdlf 00:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Far, far, far better now, and perfectly acceptable. Geogre 01:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form. Nice work. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nicely done Davodd and Postdlf. - Eisnel 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice work and nice content, but the subject is still not notable, and should be merged with Amazon Parrot. Ben@liddicott.com 08:19, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
 * I, and expect most others here, would disagree with any statement that a species of bird isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. k. Joe D (t) 22:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There are well over 9,000 recognised species of bird. Of course they all need mentioning in any good encyclopedia. This is what I suggest: Moving the content to Parrot. But they are not all notable enough for an article of their own.
 * In my opinion, (and it looks like I am outvoted anyway), a better way would be to build up sentences of content in sections within the parent article. If any species are notable, they will attract content, and an article for that species can be created when they reach a couple of paragraphs. When there is only a sentence or two of information for the species, the reader is better served by being able to make convenient side-by-side comparisions of the information.
 * Creating separate articles for every species in the absence of useful and distinct content serves no purpose.
 * Ben@liddicott.com 14:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - common household pet.Capitalistroadster 08:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it is safe to now remove the VfD listing.  Radman1 17:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Following the rewrite, the article is useful now. Keep - Mike Rosoft 21:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.