Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Parrots

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. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian Parrots

Brazilian Parrots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

First, it was in Portugal. I've translated it. And I see, that it is an advertisement of a Biomapa project! So it fails WP:NOT. I think it is needed to be deleted - Wikipedia is not for adverts! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete. Same reasons as above. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete. This is about a scientific project called BIOMAPA at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, so it is not a commercial enterprise and the article cannot be seen as an advertisement (nothing is for sale here). However, the project is still in its infancy and it is doubtful if it is developped to a point so that it deserves a Wikipedia article. If so, it should be created under the name BIOPAMA, preferably first at the Portuguese Wikipedia, and a more encyclopedic description should be given. The list of species is not informative, if at all, it should be incorporated into the Wikispecies: project, although most if not all of the species mentioned are already listed there.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Uses first person (red flag for spam). But whether or not it is intended as an ad, it does nothing but duplicate information already found elsewhere in the encyclopedia (except for the organization, of which the article only states the existence and purpose). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. the list of species found in a country seems like it might be a perfectly valid article, no matter whether it is derived from another free project--I think its not a free project but Im not an expert about this. There is no exactly equivalent category., And yes, we should . do an article on the project, but that's a separate question. I've notified WikiProject birds for a more informed opinion than I can give on the appropriateness of this article. DGG (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have a liost of birds for every country on Earth, so this doesn't add anything that List of birds of Brazil doesn't already cover. We don't need separate lists for every family or other taxa. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per Sabine's Sunbird Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. -Yupik (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like a good list that is useful to Wikipedia.Swirlex^{The Barnstar Giver} —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic article that deals with the Project Biomapa. Even as a list of parrots found in Brazil it is completely misleading and of no use: It includes numerous species not found in Brazil (Ara glaucogularis, Gypopsitta haematotis, Gypopsitta pulchra, Gypopsitta pyrilia, Hapalopsittaca amazonina, Melopsittacus undulatus, etc, etc), excludes numerous species found in Brazil (e.g. not even *one* species of Touit or Forpus on the list), and use out-dated taxonomy for others (e.g. Pionopsitta vulturina). So, check List of birds of Brazil instead, which even is divided into subsections (direct link to the parrots), and at least is (fairly) accurate. Rabo3 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into List of birds of Brazil as per SS, this is how we have done all birds articles. Links can go to a subheading within that article so nothing is lost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Careful with the merge idea: Why merge a page that is loaded with mistakes (as per my previous comment) with a page that essentially is correct? Better just delete it (or perhaps just change it to a redirect to the parrot section in the List of birds of Brazil). Rabo3 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Par above concerns that this article provides incorrect information. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Casliber's argument, and following precedent. --BizMgr (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to merge incorrect information into correct information that is already complete anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (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.