Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley

List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a mess and it has been that way for seven years. It has never had references. I was going to try to clean it up, but I couldn't even start because there are no references out there to draw on. The list is simply too arbitrary; the "Lower Colorado River Valley" does not seem to have a "

List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert), another page which is completely horrific but can maybe be salvaged because there are probably references for the Sonoran flora. If we have that page, we don't need this one. -Tortie tude (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Weak keep Unsalvageable mess, and doesn't seem to be notable. The

Sonora desert). Confusion between the drainage basin and the actual valley carved by the river itself makes LCRV a poor geographic entity to list the flora of. Missouri River Valley further illustrates the confusion inherent in the river valley concept; at one point, the Missouri River Valley is described as covering 1/6 of the US (that's the drainage basin), and at another point is described as 6 to 10 miles wide (that's the actual valley in which the river lies). There are a host of other LCRV lists that might also merit deletion. List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching), List of LCRV communities (birdwatching), and List of lakes of the LCRV (birdwatching) really don't seem useful. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That's good, but yes, I searched. I meant that I could find no references that listed the taxa of the region. It wasn't "speculation"; I never said I was nominating an article for deletion because I "speculate" there are no references. Your links are good but if you have one that defines the
List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert), because there are published lists to confirm my own, but I'm only on the Asteraceae so far, so it could take a while (there are 4000 species...) The LCRV fits within it, so if we keep this thing I'll just merge it, no problem. -Tortie tude (talk
)
I see; your nomination confused me, because your contributions and articles I have seen you created indicate you are a capable editor and can certainly find plant sources. Yes, all of these describe the plant associations of the Lower Colorado River Valley. I think editors are used to lists of taxa, but the lists can be sourced to and generated from these sources and others that describe the specific ecosystems and plant associations of the region, information that can then be directly got from other sources, although these list the primary sources. The article is poorly developed as is; but, it is an appropriate list to find in an encyclopedia, because the information is available. I would suggest this list probably came from an EIR; and the EIR will list the primary sources for it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I should have searched a little more for LCRV before voting. You're right on it's being a floristic region. LCRV also seems to be ornithologically important, but I'd guess the flyway is mostly restricted to the actual valley rather than broader the drainage basin. And there's really nothing in the text of the Lower Colorado River Valley article to suggest a broader definition (as far as I've checked, all the towns, mountains and side valleys listed are within a couple miles of the river). LCRV could use some editing to reflect the floristic/drainage basin definition of the region (which may not be the ornithological definition). And the various "(birdwatching)" lists seem to be approaching WP:HOWTO, but could be redirected to the LCRV article. Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unfortunately a disaster; and the term is specifically well-defined for the floristics, but is used in a confusing manner otherwise, or so I find out after doing more research. I think it's understandable that it seems like it should be deleted. I think we can all agree to move on, though? I have tried fixing up the article a bit, and I will try to get something on the floristic communities to list the plants by the few major communities. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Per AfadsBad, this is an encyclopedic list topic. Hesperian 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AfadsBad. -- 101.119.15.118 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources. This topic is notable and this article ought to exist if its content can be backed by sources, but it has existed since 2006 and in all that time no one has provided sources to back this content. AfadsBad is right that sources exist and that anyone can add them. I do not know what the period of grace for giving time to add sources should be but I do feel that 7 years is beyond the forgivable period. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a reason for deletion so your !vote will simply be ignored. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable region of unique interest, which is why there are sources, even though the article needs more of them, along with other improvements. Lists of flora and fauna for such regions are entirely notable and worthy of articles here. AfD is not for cleaning up articles. Goodness, city neighborhoods have their own articles on Wikipedia (which reliable sources also support)—regions of the natural world are also notable. First Light (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you could help out by digging up some lists of the flora, I'd appreciate it. I tried to clean it up but couldn't find sources to use, so I nominated it. I'm not sure how to make that more clear? I'd rather not tag it as "unreferenced" and let it sit around looking like it does for another seven years. -Tortie tude (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to do more digging, but my time here is scant right now. I think that AfadsBad would have the best understanding of the subject to do that. I do think the subject is notable enough to remain here, even in its poor shape, with the hope that it would attract improvement over time. First Light (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Flora of Lower Colorado River Valley and prosify. MOre encompassing/supporting information that explains the ecological communities can be included then. The parent article looks too broad as things are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be better, as the floral communities could be better described for the reader this way. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep — per support as notable above, and its usefulness understanding the bioregion for years, albeit with difficulty. Its creator 'Mmcannis' has been an enthusiastic, and unique to idiosycratic editor regarding the LCRV. Article begs for editing, along with overlapping
    List of southern LCRV flora by region and meager List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching). Imperfect but not disposable.—Look2See1 t a l k → 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - ok, I have redone List of flora of the Sonoran Desert Region by common name because there are sources. I think this page can be redirected to that one. There's nothing to merge, because it is apparently a complete list and LCRV fits within the region. -Tortie tude (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merge, strongly It may fit within the region, but it is a distinct ecological subset, and I oppose a merge. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_flora_of_the_Lower_Colorado_River_Valley&oldid=1068997248"