Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum abbreviatum


 * 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   speedy keep. No reason for deletion here, SNOW keep. Tone 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulbophyllum abbreviatum

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

Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a repository of entries already contained in barebone catalogues of flora and fauna that do not provide veriable evidence of notability.

This is just one of hundreds of stubs created using automated editing tools without any regard to Wikipedia content policies, sourced only from tertiary sources. Without notability, this article topic is best suited to Wikispecies, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * see also: Wikipedia talk:Notability — Jack Merridew 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - not quote sure what the nominator means. It's a real species, which puts it on the same sort of footing as a real place.  It was the subject of more than one scientific publication.  And it has been included in several checklists - the one listed as a source, the Kew checklist... Easily meets our content policies.  Guettarda (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guettarda. There are thousands of stubs like this, all expandable. By definition each species of plant has one peer-reviewed scientific paper on it and almost always many many more referencing or discussing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. WP:N with WP:RS — Ched :  ?  12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - While there are many references to the specific species of plant, Wikipedia is specifically designed to hold articles of notability. Just the existance of something doesn't mean that it should nessicarilly be included in the project (see: WP:NN), and this species of plant by itself isn't notable enough to be kept. Lithorien (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep per the edits done to the article to prove WP:N coupled with the argument from Rich Farmbrough - Better to provide some information than none at all. Lithorien (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy-Keep per Cas, Guettarda, and Rich, who's editing the article at the moment. Jack Merridew 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I understand the concerns for the type of stub, but am uneasy about all WP:NOT type arguments. If I enter a reasonable heading into WP I want to get ideally an encyclopaedic article, but failing that a simple explanation of the term and only failing that a link to another wikiproject or other site - a "not found" is almost always worse than a sub-stub. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - Per Guettarda. Has been the subject of scientific study. This just like 99% of other species related articles needed research and expansion. Granted though they all require a tremendous amount of work.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above reasons. Keep in mind that the notability guidelines beyond GNG (love 'em or hate 'em) are shortcuts for determining that reliable sources are likely to exist. Any species documented and included in catalogs is likely to have significant amounts of data backing it (unlike many other topics for which directory-like stubs may be created). There is a strong presumption that any classified species meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Bongo  matic  13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; all taxa are notable, both inherently and by the letter of the policy. Hesperian 13:49, 21 August 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.