Talk:Indian Birds

Birds Low‑importance

Indian Birds is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in August 2019.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... similar pages already exist elsewhere in Wiki - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Birds_(magazine) --Paintedstork (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the article you mention as an existing. It passes notability and verifiability check. While you do not supply any verifiable reference, that maintain the claim of notability. Please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, changing the tone from being promotional does not makes it notable. You need to establish the notability by providing reliable sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... notability has been added --Paintedstork (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in provided references fails under Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unfortunately, I am not convinced. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate indeed! Let us await an editor who is better versed with the subject address the same.

Listen, you can't add articles from the Magazine as a verifiable source about the Magazine, If you want it to stay you need to provide verifiable sources, independent from your magazine. Otherwise, it's a work in vain. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion. Does not satisfy CSD:A7

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the journal, Indian Birds is a very reputed journal about natural history and birds of South Asia. The journal satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidance. The journal has carried articles reporting several species never before seen in the south Asian region. More importantly, the journal is prestigious enough to have carried new species descriptions (this includes a species called Bugun liocichla which is a new species to Science!). This article needs a lot of improvement, but is certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Please remember that CSD:A7 is NOT about notability. The criteria clearly indicates that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant". This is also not about A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion. A7 only applies to real people, individual animals (not species) organisations and web content. --prashanthns (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I searched web for reliable sources about this journal and I didn't find anything, that I can call credible before placing speedy deletion tag. Correct me, if I wrong and feel free to provide any sources, I've missed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above about WP:CSD A7? Did you read the part where a new species of bird, meaning never before known to humanity was published in this journal? Just because the worldwide web does not give you something is no indication of whether the topic is needed here or not. Moreover, please read the part above where I mention that lack of citations about the topic is NOT an indication for speedy deletion. If this article bothers you so much, start an AfD process, where a more detailed discussion on the topic can happen, where it is clearly unlikely to meet AfD criteria too, IMHO. prashanthns (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, read. And I would appreciate more polite tone to be addressed. I did search for sources. Didn't find anything. When I look at the article, I see only links to magazine itself or some blog. It's hard to believe that such esteemed science magazine, existing for 11 years does not have any mention somewhere. So, I will allow to myself not to be convinced yet.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if lack of polite tone is due to annoying re-tagging of the article for speedy deletion in spite of clear evidence referencing appropriate guidance that this article does NOT satisfy the criteria for CSD:A7, let alone if you "will allow to (yourself) not to be convinced yet". And what's the hurry anyway? There is clearly no grave violation here. Wait for the article creator to put in the information and then consider AfD if indeed you feel strongly against. That would also be polite on your part too, no? prashanthns (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Handbook of Birds of the World citing 124 of the papers from journal considered a blog ? The same number for British Birds for that matter is 705 - and the journal has been in existence nearly atleast a century more than this one. Paintedstork (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resource on writing articles on academic journals

...useful for editors to use this resource/guidance Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. prashanthns (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]