 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
| This page was
proposed for deletion by
Darkest tree (
talk ·
contribs) on 23 October 2012 with the comment: Article is an unnecessary content fork and contains major overlap with other better, more well-developed articles such as California, Geography of California, Climate of California, and Deserts of California among others. This article also seems to have little to do with the concept of ecology, and mostly consists of a annotated list with a lot of links to other articles. It was contested by Rotten regard ( talk · contribs) on 2012-10-23 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
On 2012-10-23 I added the PROD tag to this article to propose its deletion. I feel that it qualifies for deletion for a number of reasons. First, it is an unnecessary article whose content is better covered, and covered more specifically, in articles such as California, Geography of California, Climate of California, and Deserts of California. This article seems to be little more than an expanded list. It also doesn't discuss "ecology" hardly at all, which is a dated, nebulous, and vague subject area to begin with. I don't feel that "Ecology of California" is a good subject for an article or a good title for an article that attempts to cover the subjects in this article.
Also—California is such a large state with such a massive diversity of biological communities, climates, terrains, and eco-regions, that it would be nearly impossible to bring all those subjects together adequately, under the heading of "ecology," without creating a huge amount of overlap on other articles that are already well-developed.
The concept of geography much more adequately covers the subject matter that this article seems to be trying to back itself into. The Geography of California article (to which this article links in its see also list) seems to be off to a much better start of covering these topics, and doing so in a reliable and verifiable fashion. While the Geography of California article lacks much info on biota, that is also a legitimate domain of geography. The discussion of bioregions (which seems to be the focus of this "Ecology of California" article) would be better discussed as a subject of geography.
Tellingly, the first paragraph of this article invokes "bioregionalists" and a poet as authorities for this article, to define...what exactly? Geographic areas? Now we're talking about geography again. It seems this content wants to be part of a geography article to me.
Also, the article only has two citations and a relatively short (though chronologically long) edit history. Rather than engaging in a drawn-out attempt to draw editors to make more citations and references for this undeveloped article, I think it would be best to just delete it. I myself am not going to spend time developing and finding citations for an unorganized, undirected article like this that clearly has little importance on Wikipedia.
My PROD tag was removed by User:Rotten regard with no comment. I will be sending this article up for AfD now. Darkest tree ( talk) 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
recent research connects calis ecological diversity to its native language diversity: [1](user:mercurywoodrose) 99.23.83.234 ( talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)