Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distribution of orchid species (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  01:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Distribution of orchid species
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A dreadfully incomplete attempt to apparently list every orchid species by the broadest geographical area to which it is endemic. There are ca. 28,000 orchid species, and the geographical areas with section headers are fine-grained enough to include "Canadian Prairies" (so possibly thousands of areas). An article is not a reasonable way to organize this information Plantdrew (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete and rethink per nominator's comments: "dreadfully incomplete" … "28,000 orchid species" … "possibly thousands of areas". To which I would add "haphazard". -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete We would not dream of trying this with birds, which have nearly complete coverage on WP and 1/3 the number of species. You cannot organize tens of thousands of entries in this way. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I must say, I do respect the bravery of this infeasible endeavor. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  06:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * But for users, so often, something is better than nothing. Might it be better to merely prefix the article title with "Some", or suffix the title with "(Incomplete)", or some other editorial action that makes the title reflect the article better?
 * And, sure, it might indeed be ideal to have a page or series of pages that has every orchid, rare or common, arranged more systematically. But in what way will deleting the article cause that ideal to be achieved? I kinda don't see how it is logical to condemn an existing article by referring to a preferable imaginary one? If that is an allowed method, most of Wikipedia should be deleted! :-)  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the way to tackle the classification of this large a number of entries is via categorization. And indeed we have a well-populated Category:Orchids by location. It seems to me that this essentially does the job you want done. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, duplication is a good reason to delete it, rather than mere incompleteness. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant, and has the most bizarre categorization I've ever seen: apparently sees Sundaland, New Guinea, the Philippines, and Taiwan as a coherent geographical area. AryKun (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (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.