Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley ecoregion

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley ecoregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The existence of this article seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a source. The source of the article is "Freshwater ecoregions of North America" from the WWF, but the article's contents claims that it is a terrestrial ecoregion. There is no WWF terrestrial ecoregion named "Death Valley": Death Valley is part of the Mojave desert ecoregion.

The article is essentially unrescuable. It should be deleted. —hike395 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My initial thought was "Keep" but based on nominator's explanation this was a "misinterpretation of a source" it seems delete is appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation was pretty devastating and convinced me too, but it was wrong. The WWF does define the Desert Valley ecoregion, starting on page 177 of the source (try [this search within the source. --doncram 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can show that the nominator is wrong. Misrepresentation of the only source means WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is wrong: Desert Valley ecoregion is defined from page 177 on in the source. --doncram 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator knew about page 177, see below. —hike395 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Mojave Desert ecoregion (currently a redlink), and develop there. So there was a mistake in interpretation. But the article is attempting also to describe the Mojave Desert ecoregion, and there is need for such an article, and this can be moved and developed at that title. Mojave Desert is more limited and its article does not define the presumably larger ecoregion, and the deletion nomination here seems to me to imply that the Mohave Desert ecoregion is notable. In fact the term "Mojave Desert ecoregion" appears in (at least) the following Wikipedia articles: Ecology of California#Mediterranean ecoregions, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Encelia actoni, Coxcomb Mountains, Carpenter Canyon, and Nellis Air Force Base Complex. The article should define what additional areas besides Mohave Desert proper are included in the ecoregion, and what are the ecoregion's characteristics, etc. --doncram 18:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nomination is wrong. Death Valley ecoregion is in fact defined from page 177 on in the source given in the article. I found it at [this URL, after searching within the book. Note you might not be able to get to page 177 due to limits on pageviews, which I think are randomly applied. I suggest the article could be expanded further to define the overlapping "Mohave Desert ecoregion" term which is already discussed somewhat in the article. There are various definitions, all of which can/should be explained. --doncram 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of page 177 when I made the nomination. Notice that page 177 describes a freshwater ecoregion of lakes and rivers (and the flora/fauna within them), while the article describes a terrestrial ecoregion of land. Having this article is very confusing for our readers and editors -- your original comments assumed it was a terrestrial ecoregion, also. If we moved this article to Death Valley freshwater ecoregion (a more correct title for the concept), then the article would have to be restarted from scratch, because the contents of the article has no overlap with the concept described on page 177 of the reference. I don't see that there is anything worthwhile to keep. (If you'd like to start Death Valley freshwater ecoregion, based on this reference and others, please feel free.) —hike395 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As fails verification by the claimed sources: par excellence. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:19, 11 June 2016 (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.