Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

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 merge to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Sandstein 01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

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

Another list that can be part of Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is only based on the announcement bu two environmental groups. There may be better info on the topic but it can still be part of Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As much as I want to promote env protection as an environmentalist this list is a bit too much like advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is already well covered by the new article (which I had split verbatim from Deepwater Horizon oil spill). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 06:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. 06:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a minor detail, and the species are not even "threatened", only the alleged victims of "unauthorized take" (whose lengthy definition does not include being threatened). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the new article, which I agree seems like a better editorial presentation than a couple of lists. Note that this didn't necessarily need an AfD discussion unless it was contested. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a good editorial could also be placed at the main article(s), this is a lot of information to add to what will surely be a very long article. This is the largest environmental disaster the US has ever had, and the largest oil spill of its kind. With Valdez, environmental ramifications weren't really observed until after the 4th year. It's only been 2.5 since the BP spill. Too early to delete related articles. petrarchan47 t c 22:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split from Deepwater Horizon oil spill without discussion or consensus on 23rd December (along with this article up for deletion/merge). Because many editors are on holiday, an extension on this would be much appreciated. petrarchan47 t c 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill per Alan Liefting and Jclemens. Beagel (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as suggested above. Seems like the most reasonable option. Stalwart111 11:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid list on a separate well-defined subject per WP:List. There is no need for all objects of the list to be described in a single source (per rules). No need to merge everything together. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting an entire collective list would need to come from a single source to verify this list. If one source says a species was threatened by the DWH and another RS says the same about another species, I don't think that would be considered WP:SYNTH to put them together. I think the issue here might be what constitutes a threat and to what extent and is that adequately defined by sources (and consistently) to build a list without major qualifications/caveats. I think more detailed prose with specific details about the threats to/impacts on each species would be better and can be covered in the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article (which wouldn't require a species to first be "officially" endangered for inclusion, for example). I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of a fork like Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on specific species if such a merge later turned out to produce a section way too large to be practical. Stalwart111 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with placing this list in Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill except one reason: readability. That's why we have separate pages for lists in general. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I just think this might be presented better as prose (in article and later split off if need be) than as a list - a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on different species, stock levels, species-specific recovery efforts, etc. But maybe that's too ambitious. Stalwart111 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:23, 6 January 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.