Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicormic shoots


 * 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   keep. Cool3 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Epicormic shoots

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. Fails WP:DICDEF. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable topic judging from a Google book search. It will never be a huge article but it can definitely develop into more than a definition or stub.  I'll add a ref or two. Drawn Some (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Salvagable with more content, but at the moment it looks like a "no context" Speedy Delete candidate. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete DICTDEF. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the sourcing and expansion. 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's admittedly pretty stubby at the moment, but the topic appears to be notable based on a Google Books search, which turned up a whole bunch of references. The article needs expansion as opposed to deletion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  pending confirmation of sources etc. It wouldn't take much to make it more than a dictionary entry and topic seems to be notable based on comments of others. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't keep stuff at AfD pending confirmation of sources to establish notability unless they are not available on-line. In this case I added three on-line sources (out of hundreds or thousands available) to the article so there is no reason to say "pending". Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I've been noticing this omission for some time, and I'd have started it myself if I'd got around to it.  It's closely related to a number of topics – for example Pruning, Apical dominance, Plant hormone etc.  Without epicormic growth the woodland management techniques of coppicing and pollarding would be impossible.  This is an important botanical topic which will certainly make far more than a stub, and I shall be adding to it soon if no-one else gets there first.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The initial problems with the articles seem to have been rectified. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - notable topic worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. Epicormic buds are important in re-sprouting, especially after fire or serious wind damage.  Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; plenty of potential for expansion beyond a dictionary definition. Probably should be moved to epicormic bud, though. Hesperian 06:04, 26 June 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.