" 
 *Support: the commoner and older name in books dealing with the Asian region.    
 *Support as per IOC and reducing ambiguity of name. Cheers,   ·   

 ===Oppose=== 

 * Oppose: we're not in the business of imposing logic and tidiness onto names; Wikipedia policy clearly states that article titles should reflect established usage. To put the figures above into perspective, a Google Search for ' ""Black Vulture"" Europe' gives 31,000 hits - this is the name by which the species is most widely known, and usage of the two/three ""new"" names is much less prevalent. To my mind, the solution most in line with WP policy would be to have two articles: ""Black Vulture (Old World vulture)"" and ""Black Vulture (New World vulture)"" and a disambig page. Any other option is surely akin to social engineering.    
 *::'""Black Vulture"" Europe' gives '633' unique hits, not 31,000 hits. The search term is also misleading because it will find cases of 'American Black Vulture' and Europe in a single page and count them. '""Black Vulture"" Europe -american' gives only  8,940 hits. Cinereous Vulture the way you searched gives 50,000 hits. So, established usage is obvious with the Cinereous Vulture    "