Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Checklist and Census Catalogue of British and Irish Bryophytes


 * 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   The result was Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:N, though people have claimed that it is notable, no evidence has been presented. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A Checklist and Census Catalogue of British and Irish Bryophytes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Does not establish notability. — Fatal Error 05:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep notable within the field of bryology; it's one of only two current publications which describe the British distribution of bryophytes, and many published works on the British distribution of bryophytes quote the catalogue as their primary source of distributional information. As FatalError says though, that's not clear within the text, so we ought to fix that. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per SP-KP. Certainly notable in its field. Rkitko (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable in its field. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's notable in its field, no one's noted that beyond the usual "books received." EEng (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think notability for books is the best fit, but as a key landmark or census of a group of organisms I think it should be kept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, what guideline is the best fit? EEng (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking something like Notability (academics) - a key work on british bryophytes. Agree sources are needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:ACADEMICS is for animals (specifically, human animals), not vegetables (like Bryophytes) not minerals (like books on Bryophytes). Care to try again? EEng (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC) (I'm aware that most papers are derived from vegetable matter, but that spoils the symmetry of the arch joke.)
 * Yeah, I know. It was the closest approximation to what I had in my head. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep An important work in the field of bryology. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —Snappy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that it is probably a valuable work. However, first of all, "valuable" does not necessarily equal notability. Second, there is not a single source that confirms that this is actually an important and valuable work. If it is, there should be reviews in (specialist) journals, for example. Without sources, this does not meet WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.