Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species


 * 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 keep per WP:SNOW, and I'm taking the nominator's last comment as effectively a withdrawal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reads like synthesis and original research in many places, but without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell. The tag for fixing citations has been up since 2016 with no resolution. I believe it would be nearly impossible, using the references provided below, for another editor to come and clean up the citations in this article and get it up to snuff. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is neither synthesis nor original research to compile a list of defined species by a defined time period based on known scientific data cited in numerous reliable sources. Since all species are de facto presumed notable, the presence of redlinks on the list is not an issue. The informal term "Late Quaternary" refers to the past 0.5–1.0 million years. Therefore this is a list of all scientifically defined and known extinct birds which lived in the past 1 million years. For obvious reasons it is recorded in reliable sources whether a particular species in extinct, and when it lived. The data of when it lived is reliably known in all cases from the geological context of the fossil it is recorded from, or where multiple fossil records are found, from multiple sources. The arrangement of the list is strictly by scientific classification, and therefore is the most unoriginal format imaginable, and easily verifiable from any database of taxon information. Regarding the sources in the article, these are currently insufficient and provide only a brief overview of the subject. To correctly source the article would require typing each name into the appropriate database to get inline citations for each list entry. Of course this is a lot of effort, however Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is unreasonable to expect this to complete itself in a week. And finally, many articles are bluelinked, the articles themselves already contain appropriate citations to verify their scientific classification, period, and extinction. Therefore even a cursory inspection of the list is sufficient to show that it is accurate. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the entire list, but what I have checked is correct and validly arranged information. 86.185.214.139 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There are entire books written on the topic (e.g. the Fossil birds from late Quaternary deposits in New Caledonia cited in the article), proving this meets WP:LISTN


 * As a matter of practical advice,, you can remove any content that is not accompanied by an inline citation. It cannot be returned without one. General references can't meet WP:MINREF. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually,, general references can be used to support non-controversial statements that are not direct quotations. Content that truly is controiversial, or tha tyou belive in good faith to be inaccurate, may be challenged and removed if a citaton is not provided (although it is better practice to place a cn tag and wait a week or more before removing content, see WP:PRESERVE. Removing uncited content that you have no reason to believe inaccurate is a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and a form of Disruptive Editing. Please don't do that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it's controversial (challenged or likely to be challenged) material that MINREF applies to. But inaccuracy is not the only reason for removing unsourced material. All content on Wikipedia needs to be, even more importantly than accurate, verifiable. I'm not saying that all unreferenced content needs to be removed because it compromises verifiability. But the fact that this article was tagged with no footnotes means that somebody already thinks there is a problem. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes content needs to be verifiable. It does not, however, need to be verified. Merely putting a general tag on an article does not make every statement in the article controversial. Are there specific statements you think controversial, ? If so, which and why? Given the range of general references already cited, I rather doubt that any of the content here is not verifiable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At least the two already tagged inline with "verification needed". I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just pointing out that the article has a persistent problem because it doesn't have inline citations and it's been noticed by several users. Any removal of content at this point would certainly not be disruptive. If were to stand by their words, then the logical outcome would be to remove all those statements where "without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell" if something is OR or not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are innumerable 'list of...' pages without citations to blue-linked articles, and this one doesn't need to be blown up because someone doesn't happen to like it. It meets WP:LISTN, and I support the keep rationales  of 86.185.214.139 and . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep its very much within policy and there is no reason to delete. 86.185.214.139 has put it very well.-- Kev  min  § 00:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:LISTN and WP:PRESERVE. This is not OR and while it should be better sourced, that ids not a valid reason to delete it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks all for your feedback. I will use your suggestions to challenge the material in the article that I think is questionable. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  01:39, 12 June 2018 (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.