Talk:Encyclopedia of Conifers

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://coniferworld.com/foreward2.html http://coniferworld.com/order.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV (or rather, lack thereof)
The article reads like a promotional text and is riddled with terms like "extensively illustrated", "high quality", "have extensive knowledge of conifers". This is not an article, this is a promotion of the book. Kleuske (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a promotional piece, particularly, although there is a whiff of copyvio that I should research when I have time. I can't decide whether to remove the NPOV tag or nominate the whole article for deletion. I'm sure it's a remarkable and comprehensive work, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Neither the authors, the British Conifer Society, nor the publisher have listings in Wikipedia, which makes me lean toward it being non-notable.
 * Discuss?
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The article just went through the AfD and the decision was to keep. It does need to be copyedited for tone. BTW, it was published in cooperation with Royal Horticultural Society which does have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL. I missed the AfD note at the top of the page. Thanks.
 * I've added a wikilinks to the RHS; it was only mentioned on the page as "RHS," which wasn't helpful.
 * Best regards,
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 21:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)