Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching)


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a very unusual list/article (afaics it's unique in en wp) and its inclusion criteria are unclear. It has no references. WP:NOTHOWTO may apply. DexDor(talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm unclear on the criteria for deletion in this nomination. Unusual isn't a reason for deletion and anyway there are other lists with similar purpose, such as the section List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley. Unclear inclusion criteria are typically fixed by clearly stating inclusion criteria. Lack of references are a problem, but notability really depends on whether reliable sources exist, not whether they are present in the article. Howto is a stretch here; I don't see anything like and instruction manual or excessive pedagogy here. I'm not trying to hassle you, but I think we should clarify the basis for deletion. My initial opinion (before searching for sources) is that this is a bird flora list that didn't get too far; it might be merged into List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley. --Mark viking (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked for pages with similar titles (e.g. by searching for "list flora birdwatching" and "list flora ornithology") and found nothing. I'd be happy with the page being redirected/merged to List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley (although I'm not sure moving unreferenced material from one page to another is a good idea). The page has "birdwatching" in its title, but doesn't mention birdwatching (and hardly mentions birds) so I was guessing it might be meant to be a list of plants at which birdwatchers might find birds - hence NOTHOWTO, but it really isn't clear. Does WP:DYNAMITE apply here? DexDor(talk) 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any other flora+birdwatching lists, but there some other LCRV+birdwatching lists; List of LCRV communities (birdwatching) and List of lakes of the LCRV (birdwatching). Plantdrew (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarifications. With a lack of reliable sources, WP:DYNAMITE may indeed apply. --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A problem here is that there at least two not especially compatible definitions of the Lower Colorado River Valley when it comes to flora. The broader definition of LCRV, and the definition more relevant to plant distributions encompasses the drainage basin of the lower Colorado River (this definition is used here). A narrower definition is the relatively narrow geographic valley through which the lower Colorado River flows. The narrower definition is more relevant to birdwatching, as birds tend to fly fairly close to the river as they migrate down one of the branches of the Pacific Flyway. The towns and side valleys listed in Lower Colorado River Valley are all quite close the river (with the scope of that article defined by the same person who created the list under discussion here). Competing definitions of drainage basin vs. geographic valley aren't unique to LCRV articles; Missouri River Valley says that it drains 1/6 of the US (drainage basin) and is 6-10 miles wide (geographic valley). The LCRV plants relevant to birders are a subset of the LCRV plants relevant to botanists. No sources are cited, and botanical sources won't cover the "(birdwatching)" aspect. Unless there's a source for the flora relevant to birdwatchers, this stinks of Original Research. Delete it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Investigating this some more, the main problem is a lack of reliable sources upon which to decide inclusion. Unlike many WP:SAL articles, there isn't a parent article for guidance. I tried looking for such reliable sources, but did not find any. Without such sources, we can't build a believable list, or verify content for a merge. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I did find a suitable merge target: List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley, I do agree with Mark that we simply lack the good sources for including the list at all. DeVerm (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2016 (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.