Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basal leaf


 * 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   redirect to Leaf.  MBisanz  talk 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Basal leaf

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists of a simple dictionary definition with answers.com as the only source (not a reliable source). There's not much room to expand the article beyond a dictionary definition. As a term in plant anatomy, it is of little taxonomic significance and not much more can be said about it. Definition should be copied to Wiktionary and List of plant morphology terms and then redirected if a better source can be found. If not it should just be redirected. Rkitko (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep it important for plant anatomists.User:Yousaf465


 * delete. Article has no WP:RS for WP:V and at the end of the day. If we removed all the information that is unsourced reliably, then it'd be blank. It's just a type of leaf and doesn't require its own article.  fr33k man   -s-  05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable stub on a topic that could be expanded to a good article. Improvements to the article could include discussions on which families of plants have such leaves.  JulesH (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just the problem I noted above in my rationale, it's not taxonomically significant. Most families have a few or at least one member that possesses basal leaves. What else is there to say about it than what it is and it's location? Rosette (botany) also covers some of this territory. --Rkitko (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it taxonomically significant? If i'm not mistaken, some plants have only basal leaves, some have none, in other plants they aren't differentiated from the other leaves. There seems to be lots of room for expansion. Isn't this a little bit like trying to delete an article on feet or roots? I'm missing where this subject isn't notable and why it isn't worth including in an encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, some do, some don't. The distribution of plants with basal leaves is seemingly random, unlike other plant forms like cushion plants. It's not taxonomically or evolutionarily significant. All of the recent additions you've made are random examples of plants with basal leaves and add no real discussion of the significance of basal leaves. This information is already included in articles like rosette (botany) about plant forms (not about the type of leaf), so I concur with the opinions below: any usable information should be merged into Leaf; this article can never meaningfully be expanded beyond a stub. Would it make any sense to also have an article at apical leaf? --Rkitko (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Indeed it does seem to be a location as much or more than an anatomical description, so not as notable as a particular plant part. As such I would be okay with merging the notable content. I think the information is definitely worth including and I wouldn't rule out the chance that an article could at some point be developed. I'm not at all certain that basal leaves aren't significant in evolution, and I think variances among plants as far as the role (or lack of role) of basal leaves is interesting. I couldn't find a whole lot about basal leaves in google books and goodle new, but there is some discussion of the leaves growing in this location and plant growth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Leaf. The section already discusses leave arrangements. This currently missing little factoid would fit in nicely there. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for WP:V, the basic definition can be found in basic botany literature. - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic should be covered in other areas instead of on a stand alone page, there are problem with the definition in the article as it now stands (I know that is not a reason for deletion). This type of leaf habit is a product of short internodes and can be covered under stems, or on the page covering leaf. It also needs to tie how they relate and contrast with stem or cauline leaves too. The best page to make would be Leaf arrangement (on stem). Hardyplants (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redir MGM's idea seems reasonable. Should a more thorough article on the purpose of basal leaves in plants, the evolution of the leaves to meet the purpose, and so on, be possible, let it be worked up on the basal leaf talk page, and then implemented. The current form of the article's not satisfactory for reasons given above, and though I brainstorm ideas here, I have no idea if that depth of information's available. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I think it's worth including, but I'm not sure it needs to be in its own article. (I created this article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge A lot of tiny articles generally make it harder to cover subjects such as plant morphology in a coherent way. Leaf sounds like a good place to me although I'm sure there are other possibilities. The text might also need some work (I'm sure there are better/other examples of plants with two kinds of leaves, one basal and one up the stem, although I'm not thinking of them right now), but the concept is relevant enough to be a paragraph or some such. Kingdon (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect; you're not going to get much more than a dictionary definition here. Hesperian 01:03, 19 February 2009 (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.