- 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. If editors are interested in revisiting information from this article for merging to kakapo-related articles, I am happy to restore it in userspace. signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
List of kākāpō
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of kākāpō ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird. All of the references used are primary, because no secondary source discusses this in a way that would justify a list. AryKun ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and New Zealand. AryKun ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep I would take some issue with the nomination statement: "
Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird.
" This is a species with a world population of 248, every single one of which is named, tracked and monitored. The Kākāpō recovery programme itself is highly notable. Obviously almost all the specific material in the list is primary-sourced (and there seem to be big gaps in the sourcing, too.) That's a problem, but I think it is mainly taken care of by the fact that the list topic itself is indisputably notable and extensively covered by secondary and tertiary sources. I think an argument could be made that this list is a reasonable extension of the coverage we give at the above link, especially since it is not available anywhere else in this collated form - this seems brought together from lots of individual nuggets, making it a valuable resource. See List of giant squid specimens and sightings (2001–2014) for a prime example of this kind of added value (admittedly that one is much stronger in secondary coverage). Sourcing for the article does need to be cleaned up though - there needs to be a ref for every one of these entries. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)- The recovery program is notable. A list listing every kakapo that has existed since the 1970's is not. AryKun ( talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. This list and the topic in general are quite interesting, but I also find it absurd to list every one of them alive past a certain year. I highly doubt any casual reader would take the time to check a certain entry on this list. They would just scroll through. I am not an expert on this, so I'm not sure on its significance and will just note this as a vote for "weak" deletion. Aintabli ( talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a database, nor is it a studbook. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nuke from orbit. I was flabbergasted to see that this list has existed for almost twenty years. This is an utterly indefensible pile of WP:NOT, made worse by the fact the majority of it is sourced to Facebook and Instagram updates from the preservation program itself. Normally, I'd say more, but let's just let common sense take care of this one. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and potentially merge some information into the Kākāpō Recovery programme section. Really silly article--fun to read but clearly not what Wikipedia is for. Chamaemelum ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2023 (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.
- 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. If editors are interested in revisiting information from this article for merging to kakapo-related articles, I am happy to restore it in userspace. signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
List of kākāpō
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of kākāpō ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird. All of the references used are primary, because no secondary source discusses this in a way that would justify a list. AryKun ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and New Zealand. AryKun ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep I would take some issue with the nomination statement: "
Zero notability as a whole. No reason why kakapos are notable enough for a list collating each individual bird.
" This is a species with a world population of 248, every single one of which is named, tracked and monitored. The Kākāpō recovery programme itself is highly notable. Obviously almost all the specific material in the list is primary-sourced (and there seem to be big gaps in the sourcing, too.) That's a problem, but I think it is mainly taken care of by the fact that the list topic itself is indisputably notable and extensively covered by secondary and tertiary sources. I think an argument could be made that this list is a reasonable extension of the coverage we give at the above link, especially since it is not available anywhere else in this collated form - this seems brought together from lots of individual nuggets, making it a valuable resource. See List of giant squid specimens and sightings (2001–2014) for a prime example of this kind of added value (admittedly that one is much stronger in secondary coverage). Sourcing for the article does need to be cleaned up though - there needs to be a ref for every one of these entries. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)- The recovery program is notable. A list listing every kakapo that has existed since the 1970's is not. AryKun ( talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. This list and the topic in general are quite interesting, but I also find it absurd to list every one of them alive past a certain year. I highly doubt any casual reader would take the time to check a certain entry on this list. They would just scroll through. I am not an expert on this, so I'm not sure on its significance and will just note this as a vote for "weak" deletion. Aintabli ( talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a database, nor is it a studbook. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nuke from orbit. I was flabbergasted to see that this list has existed for almost twenty years. This is an utterly indefensible pile of WP:NOT, made worse by the fact the majority of it is sourced to Facebook and Instagram updates from the preservation program itself. Normally, I'd say more, but let's just let common sense take care of this one. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and potentially merge some information into the Kākāpō Recovery programme section. Really silly article--fun to read but clearly not what Wikipedia is for. Chamaemelum ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2023 (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.