Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of South Carolina birds


 * 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The result was Speedy close - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of South Carolina birds

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Its meaningless to have a list with only one member (admittedly more could be added, but its had only one member for over 3 months) Davidprior 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Either it's a legitimate article or not. If it's a good list, then Keep and wait for someone to get off the pot. MarkBul 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I added the rest of the birds to the list. It needs wikifying and improving, but it's a legitimate start now.  See List of Oklahoma birds for a similar article.  The nominator says 'more could be added' so I wonder why he didn't add them himself, rather than nominating it for deletion.  Deletion is a last resort, rather than a first option. Nick mallory 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to Intensive Care Unit. In fact, Dr. Nick mallory, one of our fine residents, is working on it there now. Realkyhick 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  unless somebody cares to trim it down to list of birds native to SC, but I fail to see why we should list every bird ever spotted/transplanted in SC Corpx 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Define native? It's a list of birds seen in South Carolina and it's only just been started really.  It can be organised into breeding, migratory, rarities etc but give me a chance here.  Ten minutes ago it was a list of one bird - the house sparrow.  You're welcome to help organise it but there's nothing about the entries on the list which clash with the title of the article. Nick mallory 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By native, birds who inhabit SC, but not as a result of human transplanting?  I dont think I'm qualified to define the term any further :/ Corpx 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So that would rule out Red Kites in England and Indian Mynahs, Starlings and House Sparrows in Sydney then. This is a discussion about whether or not such a list is valid, which is clearly is, not how that list should be organised.    Nick mallory 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly cede to your judgement Corpx 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Actually your point is quite valid but like I said that's a question of the list's organisation rather than its overall legitimacy.  The Oaklahoma bird list is organised with birds classed as (I) - Introduced: Birds that have been introduced to North America by the actions of man, either directly or indirectly (E) - Extinct (Ex) - Extirpated: A bird that, while it is not extinct, is no longer found in Oklahoma. The only bird marked (Ex) is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which was, until 2004 presumed to be extinct, but was rediscovered in the wild. However it is not now found in Oklahoma (A) - Accidental: Birds that have been seen only a few times, or only once. (H) - Hypothetical: Birds that have had a credible sighting reported, but have not been documented with a specimen or with a suitable photograph.  That sort of organisation can be done here as well as splitting the birds up into families but Rome, or Wikipedia, wasn't built in a day.Nick mallory 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It has been fixed up. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why not categorize? /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because a category couldn't tell you if the bird was native there, introduced, extinct, extirpated or whatever and the individual bird articles couldn't carry all the information for each state. There are lists of birds for countries and, increasingly, lists for US states.  Why not categories for bird lists for countries?  It's much more convenient this way for users.  Wikipedia is not paper.  Nick mallory 07:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think lists are the preferred choice for those reasons and because it sorts the birds by taxonomically and text and pictures can be added. Some times categories are used too, but I am against that because some birds would have 50+ categories attached to them and lists do a much better job because of the given reasons. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep To say that it has been fixed up is an understatement. Great work.  Mandsford 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good work, Nick. Pursey 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above.--Vox Humana 8' 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Category:Regional bird lists.  There are tons of these pages.  They need cleaning and sourcing.  We even have List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona.  Corvus cornix 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would never have nominated it for deletion if it had looked anything like it does now, the improvement/expansion is so vast. Don't suppose there's some way for me to withdraw my original nomination and get this over with? Davidprior 13:05, 6 September 2007 (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.