Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Little Penguin colonies (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Penguin colonies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note. The first nomination was closed because the article was linked for the Main Page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of this type is not possible without some sort of inclusion criteria. See the talk page comments. The tourist attractions can be added to the Little Penguin article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Little Penguins and their colonies are significant tourist attractions and are protected by governments such as Australia. If the nominator wants some sort of inclusion criterion then that's a matter of ordinary editing. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion rather than trying to make this article work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article works already in providing reasonably accurate information about the nesting sites for these birds. "Perfect is the enemy of good". Warden (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia's main page. That means it has to be a featured article as well. It should not have been sent to AFD without talking on the talk page about any editing that should be done. More information could be added, instead of just the location, listing any referenced details found in tourists brochures, government websites, newspapers, or other reliable sources. Also the name should be changed to List of colonies of Little Penguins, to show there is a species of penguin called Little Penguin, and this isn't just a penguin colony that is little. I'll see about adding a few references to the article. Dream Focus 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a featured article. It was a plain old link from a featured picture description that was on the Main Page. As for the content that you describe that can be place in the Little Penguin article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The inclusion criteria for the article is already implied, since Little Penguins occur naturally in Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, with reports of colonies in Chile and South Africa (possibly due to vagrancy, or maybe from being transported from the Australian continent). Furthermore, the information on the article's talk page (e.g. "Little penguins do not breed in well defined colonies...) appears to be unverified speculation/original research. Information in the Little Penguin article counters this notion, where it states "They exhibit site fidelity to their nesting colonies and nesting sites over successive years." and "Little Penguins live year-round in large colonies, with each individual breeding pair forming a burrow in which to raise their chicks (of which two are born at a time, usually about 2 days apart)." Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been significantly improved compared to its state at the time of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination makes no sense, since the scope of the article is clear, and plenty of sources exist. -- 202.124.74.37 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'd love some clarification by the nominator. The inclusion criteria appears quite obvious from the title of the article; what is the problem? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I noticed on the talk page: "Little penguins do not breed in well defined colonies". That does seem like a good reason for deletion; I would support deletion if this were true. However, the Little Penguin and what skimming of google scholar I've done suggest that the claim isn't true. So which is it: are there well-defined or notable groups such that it makes sense to have a list? Or is it just a few birds here and there along the entire coast? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly rename to Areal of Little Penguin. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, suggestion that they don't breed in colonies is nonsense (OR follows) I've been to two of the NZ colonies, one of which has regular evening watching sessions for people to watch the birds return to the colony; nests can be within a metre or so of each other, which is what a colony is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article has been massively improved by editor NorthAmerica. It now has a well defined scope and a well chosen selection of images. Cute city. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close per WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep no real substance to the initial nomination. "A list of this type is not possible without some sort of inclusion criteria" is bizarre at best, misguided if kind, ridiculous at worst. The list could be improved, but it's certainly not "not possible", its inclusion criteria are obvious from the title of the list. Worst case, add {{incomplete list}}. What a waste of Wikipedia's bare resources to nominate this for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me it seems to be a good topic for a list and the list looks quite good today. Incidentally, at this juncture I think that a consensus here seems obvious; see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Snowman (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2012 (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.