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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds by flight heights[edit]

List of birds by flight heights (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)

Pointless list. Only two identifiable referenced species. Then we get vague terms like "vultures". Many species in at least two families, does the unsourced text apply to all the species? Similarly with #4, seven families with hundreds of species, all flying at 1135 ft, allegedly. A list of two verifiable items isn't a list, makes as much a sense as "list of presidents named Bush" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance for improvements? I found and added the sources in 5 minutes. Right now we have this: Organisms_at_high_altitude#Flying_and_gliding (Highest flying birds is a redirect to that page). Is it sufficient or could we do better than this? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Specific examples of highest flying bird species are Rüppell's Vulture (fact reliably referenced in the article's body), Bar-tailed Godwit, Mallard or Alpine Chough (ref. [1], Audubon). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more species from that useful reference. -- 101.119.15.81 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The point of the page seems clear and, as people have studied the altitude of flying birds and written about this in papere such as The Speed and Altitude of Bird Flight, the topic is notable. Andrew (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting that the topic isn't notable, just that as it stands it doesn't have enough content to justify its existence. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it isn't perfect, but it has some referenced content and some room for expansion, as suggested above. It isn't the best start, but not the worst either. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is classic original research Secret ^account 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The content is now well-referenced. -- 101.119.14.81 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs work, but satisfies WP:LISTN. Similar lists occur widely in WP:RS. The nom's criticisms have become untrue after changes to the article, and having insufficient content was not really a valid deletion criterion anyway. -- 101.119.15.81 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article has been expanded and it is well-cited with reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been asked if I would like to withdraw this AfD. Although I would accept that it now has more than two items and is referenced, it is still pointless.

It implies that these are the highest flying birds, but this is clearly unlikely. There are no species listed that are exclusively from N or S America (although two breed there as well as Eurasia), just one primarily African species, none from south or southeast Asia, none from Australasia, and just one Asian species that doesn't breed in Europe too. Very Eurocentric.

The suggestion is that these are the birds that can fly to the highest levels, but the Alpine Chough starts off a much higher level than most birds

The focus on Europe means that likely contenders like the Andean Condor, Asian swifts, American geese and ducks are ignored.

It's a random list, I'm content to let the AfD run its course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These both seem to be cleanup problems, not deletion problems. Why not tag it with ((globalize)) and ((Expand list)) instead of nominating for deletion? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, the list obviously has to be limited to known high-flying birds. The "Eurocentric" comment is completely ridiculous, since several birds mentioned fly across the Himalayas. There is already an American duck on the list (with a height record established over Nevada), but feel free to add the Andean Condor -- it would come in at #10, given the present nine entries, since it soars to only 15,000 feet. However, incompleteness of the list is not a deletion reason: see WP:WORKINPROGRESS. And I don't think this article would ever have come to AfD if a proper WP:BEFORE check had been done. -- 101.119.14.172 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no idea what "random list" is supposed to mean. The list is of birds which have been observed to fly very high; and the article in its present form collates all the high-flying species listed in four separate reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.210 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Move contents to section in Bird flight - the actual maximum height at which a bird is seen is really more an artefact related to human presence at high-altitude and circumstances that allow observation rather than the actual abilities of the birds (many may actually be capable of higher altitude flight than the few that have been observed) - the contents of this list can be comfortably and contextually handled in an article on bird physiology, or hypoxia or avian flight - see http://jap.physiology.org/content/111/5/1514 http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/62.full http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/62.full Shyamal (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Cited extrema are inherently notable (despite Shyma's objection). If you delete this one, you might as well delete List of birds by flight speed too. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Extremes are notable, yes. But is trying to list all birds this way notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would imagine that the article will eventually have an altitude limit (say, 2000 m or 4000 m) and only list extremes above that, in order to keep the list to a sane length. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that List_of_birds_by_flight_speed has some of the same problems and is equally worthy of deletion (though I am not a big fan of the deletion process). Shyamal (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing any good arguments that relate to actual deletion criteria, like notability, and it doesn't seem inherently problematic to me. Article certainly needs cleanup and expansion and may need to be moved or reworked into something like "List of birds by highest observed flight altitude" or "List of highest-flying birds", or something like that. I think anything that purports to be a list of all birds will necessarily be unwieldy and incomplete, so the scope may need to be reigned in, but that's a discussion that can be had on the talk page of the article. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated above, this list/article needs expansion and some other love, but in no way needs to be deleted. Granted, the way it looked when the nomination originated may have been closer to a Delete, but, it still would have been keep. I think, with the amount of energy spent arguing about these things we should just research and expand, and as for the argument about the list being anecdotal and meaningless as it is only the heights at which humans see them fly at. Aren't a lot of things that we document about birds only as likely to be "around humans" such as their behavior, etc. Also, as with most behaviors with animals, the vast majority all act the same, it's not like one Andean Condor wakes up one morning and says I am going to fly to the moon. They do what instinct has them doing and they pretty much all do it the same way --species by species. Thanks speednat (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of behavioural traits are noted by accident, but by and large our species accounts include behavioural notes based on secondary/tertiary sources which point out what is normal and we exceptions are usually expected to be indicated carefully. The Ruppell's vulture height given is not the norm but a single exception based on an aircraft collision record. This and some of the other exceptional records could very well be included in the article on bird flight. Shyamal (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruppell's vulture height given is widely cited in secondary and tertiary sources, and it has long been in the Rüppell's Vulture article. You're clutching at straws here. -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed well cited. But should this list have the normal altitudes or the highs alone? Above terrain or above mean sea level? During migration or normal flight? Shyamal (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an argument for deletion? The same argument could be made about whether to list cities by core population or metro area or something. For now it's small enough that a sortable table with cruising altitude and maximum altitude would probably work fine. Presumably the amount of information that is interesting to people is an editorial decision that can be made among the editors of the article, which is again a surmountable problem. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for deletion (I do not vote for that anyway). I see what the point is, it is just that this is currently being put together in a slip-shod way and it will remain that way if the aims are unclear. What you are really seeking seems to me like what will happen in a better way with an efficient semantic wiki - until that happens, the list can live. Shyamal (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2014 (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.