Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vagrant birds of the Iberian Peninsula

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. ✗plicit 15:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of vagrant birds of the Iberian Peninsula[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Iberian peninsula does not have a bird list, because it's too large for a decent list and not a zoogeographically important list. Even if it did, all other "birds of place" lists just mark accidentals with a tag instead of splitting them into a separate list. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, Portugal, and Spain. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is SELECT FROM (List of birds of Spain || List of birds of Portugal) WITH (status="accidental"), or close enough :p. We do avoid this Venn diagram-like approach to making lists whenever possible, for obvious reasons of duplication. (I'm not on board with the other nom argument here; if anything, the Iberian Peninsula is a more sensible zoogeographic unit than Spain or Portugal, but as it is we do have this covered with the existing articles.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve always made taxa checklists by political boundaries; it’s how the world works. What I meant is that the Iberian Peninsula is not zoogeographically important enough to warrant an exception, the way an island like Hispaniola or New Guinea might be. It doesn’t have particularly distinctive fauna compared to the rest of Europe or North Africa, and so doesn’t need a list any more than the Horn of Africa or Malay Peninsula would. AryKun (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elmidae. I like lists but duplication just leads to long-term maintenance and quality issues. We have >6 million articles to watch and maintain for our readers.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will understand if this article is deleted; although more information has been added about these accidental birds (such as some information about them and how they ended up in the Iberian Peninsula) and also about their status (with the latest codes according to the IUCN Red List); thank you for your observations! Srr9810 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn’t the quality of the article, it’s that the article itself is not notable and duplicates what you can find on other pages. This is just all the species in the Spain and Portugal lists that have an accidental tag. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that an article on a more general subject should be created first. desmay (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2023 (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.