- 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 no consensus. —ScottyWong— 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
List of mammals of South Ossetia
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of mammals of South Ossetia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
South Ossetia is only recognised by a handful of countries, is almost universally recognised as being a part of Georgia, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Georgia (country). J0ngM0ng ( talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - IUCN, ADW, and MDW are all valid sources and cited in the article, so am not sure the “one” reference that is bad. Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of
List of mammals of Texas. --
awkwafaba (
📥)
11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not saying it's a statement of sovereignty personally, but when even nature sources don't consider a region important enough to be assessed, then maybe it means something. J0ngM0ng ( talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect No indication that this subset list is necessary. Reywas92 Talk 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or rename This is not only unrecognized, but it is not a subnational division either. The article on
South Ossetia tells us that its territory “does not correspond to any Georgian administrative area (although Georgian authorities have set up the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia as a transitional measure leading to the settlement of South Ossetia's status), with most of the territory included into Shida Kartli region. When neutral language is deemed necessary, both Georgia and international organisations often refer to the area informally as the (legally undefined) "Tskhinvali Region".” It also has unstable boundaries, due to
borderization. —
Michael
Z.
19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ultimately, it depends whether reliable sources have recognized this as a notable subject, per WP:NOTABILITY. At a glance, it doesn’t appear that any of the cited source mentions South Ossetia. “Mammals of Texas,” in quotation marks, returns over 20k Google Books results; “mammals of South Ossetia” returns one bogus book titled after an experimental visual artist. — Michael Z. 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The article doesn't mention the political status of South Ossetia. I don't think there is a rule to confine the listing of flora or fauna to national borders, especially because the borders may change anytime. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support redirect, per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 12:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder when this page will finally be reviewed? J0ngM0ng ( talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Awkwafaba and Dr.KBAHT. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fine. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't have any specific objection to a redirect, but South Ossetia is specifically referenced in the infobox under "States with limited recognition", which would seem to not contradict the assertion in the nomination here. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that such a list confers any form of sovereignty. St★lwart 111 02:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect. Clearly the purpose of this article is politics, not biology. Tercer ( talk) 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I don;t see that clearly or otherwise. it's appropriate to have such a list for any substantial defined region, regardless of what anyone may think of the politics. If the article mentioned politics at all, that would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for two reasons:
- This whole page is an original research. It does not use any sources like "Fauna of South Ossetia".
- This is not a unique geographic region, with its own endemic fauna. So, no, it does not make sense to create such lists for any arbitrary defined geographic region. And yes, it was not recognized as a country. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it might be redirected or merged, but given lack of sourcing and WP:OR, I think it better be just deleted. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
07:26, 24 September 2021 (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 no consensus. —ScottyWong— 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
List of mammals of South Ossetia
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of mammals of South Ossetia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
South Ossetia is only recognised by a handful of countries, is almost universally recognised as being a part of Georgia, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Georgia (country). J0ngM0ng ( talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - IUCN, ADW, and MDW are all valid sources and cited in the article, so am not sure the “one” reference that is bad. Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of
List of mammals of Texas. --
awkwafaba (
📥)
11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not saying it's a statement of sovereignty personally, but when even nature sources don't consider a region important enough to be assessed, then maybe it means something. J0ngM0ng ( talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect No indication that this subset list is necessary. Reywas92 Talk 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or rename This is not only unrecognized, but it is not a subnational division either. The article on
South Ossetia tells us that its territory “does not correspond to any Georgian administrative area (although Georgian authorities have set up the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia as a transitional measure leading to the settlement of South Ossetia's status), with most of the territory included into Shida Kartli region. When neutral language is deemed necessary, both Georgia and international organisations often refer to the area informally as the (legally undefined) "Tskhinvali Region".” It also has unstable boundaries, due to
borderization. —
Michael
Z.
19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ultimately, it depends whether reliable sources have recognized this as a notable subject, per WP:NOTABILITY. At a glance, it doesn’t appear that any of the cited source mentions South Ossetia. “Mammals of Texas,” in quotation marks, returns over 20k Google Books results; “mammals of South Ossetia” returns one bogus book titled after an experimental visual artist. — Michael Z. 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The article doesn't mention the political status of South Ossetia. I don't think there is a rule to confine the listing of flora or fauna to national borders, especially because the borders may change anytime. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support redirect, per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 12:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder when this page will finally be reviewed? J0ngM0ng ( talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Awkwafaba and Dr.KBAHT. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fine. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't have any specific objection to a redirect, but South Ossetia is specifically referenced in the infobox under "States with limited recognition", which would seem to not contradict the assertion in the nomination here. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that such a list confers any form of sovereignty. St★lwart 111 02:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect. Clearly the purpose of this article is politics, not biology. Tercer ( talk) 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I don;t see that clearly or otherwise. it's appropriate to have such a list for any substantial defined region, regardless of what anyone may think of the politics. If the article mentioned politics at all, that would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for two reasons:
- This whole page is an original research. It does not use any sources like "Fauna of South Ossetia".
- This is not a unique geographic region, with its own endemic fauna. So, no, it does not make sense to create such lists for any arbitrary defined geographic region. And yes, it was not recognized as a country. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it might be redirected or merged, but given lack of sourcing and WP:OR, I think it better be just deleted. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
07:26, 24 September 2021 (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.