Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pollinators of Oregon


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

List of pollinators of Oregon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt the pollinators are able to restrict their activity to the state of Oregon. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to fail WP:LISTN. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment List was created by consensus at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_26
 * Mammals cross state lines. We have a list of mammals of every state.
 * This list is WP:OR unless we have more strictly defined criteria. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - with a name change to List of pollinators of the American Pacific Northwest. Makes sense a s regional list, not as a state-level list. Useful navigational function. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd be surprised if a secondary source mentioned this particular list. I'm also sure there are hundreds of insect species that are pollinators and are found in Oregon, as well as hummingbirds.  I don't see the point of listing a few of them like this. Borock (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of a source for this list is a valid reason to delete. "The list would be long" or "the list is currently not complete" are not good reasons.  I created the list, after consensus was reached at the CfD, but now agree it should be deleted unless/until a source can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. The nominator's rationale is without merit, as Gaff points out in the first comment; there is not and never has been a rule that we can only list things by place if they are exclusive to that place. Division by state lines makes sense because 1) plenty of reliable sources catalog flora and fauna by state; and 2) state-level agencies have a significant role in stewardship and policymaking over managed public lands, wild ecosystems, and agriculture, to all of which pollinators are specifically relevant and significant. My concern is with whether we have verified that these species actually act as pollinators within this state and are not merely found there (do pollinators act as such all throughout their range? what if they migrate and so aren't there during the right season?), and there may be also be little informational value if we can't do more than individually spot check the odd species here or there. WP:TNT might be a good approach unless we can find a more comprehensive source on this specific topic. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I started this list without realizing that there really is not a source that defines inclusion/exclusion criteria.  (My intentions were to do good!)  "My" other list List of mammals of Oregon is developed off of such source(s).  It is difficult to even say what qualifies as a "pollinator" since some things are pollinated by wind or by accident when some animal bumps into them.  So yes, delete it, but do i for the right reason, so that a bad precedent is not set.  As mentioned, even though state boundaries are human creations and somewhat arbitrary, they have very important implications in terms of natural resource management, conservation, regulations, etc.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 21:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Aerospeed  (Talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for the right reason, lack of coverage, as Gaff, the original creator, says. --Bejnar (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am getting out of the way on this to make it easier for the closing administrator. Consensus seems to be to delete. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 30 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.