Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fauna of Maine

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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Maine[edit]

I have no doubt that the fauna of Maine deserves an article, but this ain't it. Sometime, it is possible that someone will want to write a real article about Maine's fauna, and when they do, it will probably only have the word "Maine" in common with this...thing. Maine apparently has such fauna as "trees... pine cones, and etc", it has a coast on its coast and has "lots of rainy seasons including snowy peaks and valleys". I suggest that a large pit is dug and this article is placed at the bottom of it. There's nothing here worth redirecting, and a redirect from this title simply to Maine seems a little facile. So unless it's improved considerably, this should just go, to reduce Wikipedia's embarrassment quotient. Grutness...wha? 12:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nomination after good rewrite by Youngamerican. it's still a stub, but at least it's now a sensible one. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep per below. PJM 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Movementarian (Talk) 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten by Youngamerican. Good stub that could turn into a good article. Movementarian (Talk) 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Good job, Youngamerican! This is now a useful stub (especially because of the reference). Keep. By the way, shouldn't the first "Fauna" be lower-case? - Liberatore(T) 18:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. keep now that it is a decent stub. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice per Movementarian. I would go "keep" if this article is improved by then. Youngamerican 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my quickie rewrite. I feel that I made it presentable as a stub, as it now has specific animals that live in Maine and no longer considers a pinecone to be an animal. Youngamerican 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Youngamerican. I still think it would serve better as a subsection in Maine. IMHO. PJM 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article could possibly get the ball rolling on a project that would cover the fauna of all of the US states and the various territories of other countries by users that know about wildlife. There could probably be alot written on the fauna of each state, unfortunately not by me, a humble cartographer/human geographer. Youngamerican 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be interesting. I think you've sold me on this. PJM 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around to see to see if there's anything like this out there already. There are a whole lot of list-articles, but I did find Fauna of Australia. There are also a lot of categories (e.g. Category:Natural history of the United States, Category:Regional mammals lists, Category:Flora by country, Category:Flora by region, Category:Animals by country), but just about all of the leaves in those categories are individual species or lists. One thing that might be worth considering is including plants (maybe Wildlife of Maine) help the article(s) get off the ground as quickly as possible. ×Meegs 23:52, 13 January 2006 (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.