Talk:Ulmus 'Frontier'

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulmus 'Frontier'. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719132020/http://www.sunshinenursery.com/survey.htm to http://www.sunshinenursery.com/survey.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability? Uses?
This includes all the Chinese elm cultivars I've seen.

MOS:LEAD quote: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:64C7:92A:F58E:B5EC (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

..."A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]"

For example; "Beatlemaniacs," no matter how enthusiastic, are not "the world at large."

"We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)"

WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Encyclopedic content --- Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1]"

This article seems to be an example of an exposition of all possible details of the Chinese elm, and is already covered in that article as a list of cultivars. When I clicked on the link to here, (and some others) I found no useful info, just meaningless breeder names and locations, etc, IOW trivial trivia (except possibly to "Beatlemaniacs," as opposed to "Beatles fans.") IOW, I felt ripped off. I believe the articles should be expanded, or deleted. If they can't be meaningfully expanded, that seems like evidence for deletion.

It's also possible that among the "sea of blue" list of cultivars, some have actual importance. It could be that just that (what seems to be) indiscriminate list needs to be annotated, or partially de-linked, or some-such editing. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:64C7:92A:F58E:B5EC (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford