Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotically shaped plants


 * 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 delete per G7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Erotically shaped plants

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Rather unencyclopedic, subjective article. Is there some objective classification of 'erotically shaped'? If there were is this a subject notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? No and no. Prodego  talk  01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Of course there are objective classifications of 'erotically shaped'. It is well known fact that coco de mer and orchids shaped erotically, it is clearly seen at the images. It is also clearly stated in the reliable sources I'm using. So, nothing subjective there.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a non-notable and artificial category of plants that doesn't deserve its own article. The content is ok, it just should be in the respective plant articles, not synthesized into a combined article. I would say the same about an article on Urn shaped plants. Rkitko (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If a reader is looking for the plants that are shaped erotically or sexy plants for that matter (and I am sure many readers would), how he/she, the reader, should know what individual articles to look at? This article, if it is to survive AfD, will be expanded in November, when "The Untamed Garden – A Revealing Look At Our Love Affair With Plants" with lots of interesting info is published. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. I think this is a really interesting article, but I have to admit it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. I made a small effort to search for sources, and although there is plenty on the plants individually, I can't find any sources about erotically-shaped plants in general. I agree that we should move the content to the respective articles, as I would like to see it stay in Wikipedia even if it can't have its own article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw the comment above about "The Untamed Garden". It looks like there will be a reliable source available in the future, which I think we can definitely take into consideration here. Is anyone aware of any other sources? If we can find the sources I will change my vote to keep. Also, I think this topic might be better off presented in list format - pending confirmation of notability, would anyone else support a move to List of erotically-shaped plants? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, This is going to be a reliable source that mentions orchids and coco de mer together. So why to delete the article now? Besides practically all sources I am using call one plant or another "erotic" or "sexy". This source mentions coco de mer and Phallus impudicus together. It could have been added to the article, but why to loose time, if it is going to be deleted? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we should consider userfying this article for now, since there's a reasonable expectation that we'll have better sources in the near future. (Also, why isn't Banana on here!) Qrsdogg (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the content is sourced but that it's not a stand-alone article. Does the proposal for list-ifying suggest trimming the content that's there, because I'm not in favour of that idea.  The upcoming source being mentioned in the lede I find waaayyy out of bounds, and normally seeing that I'd suspect conflict of interest. And disagree with userfication, as even accepting that the book would be a reliable source, it would just be one such source. I am, however, suprised that this topic is does not have more sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as combination of separate topics unified by one solitary book which hasn't even been published. Articles on the individual plants already exist ( most created by the same user who created this article [ed. see below]), and there is no need to propagate the information into more and more articles. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. What articles I created coco de mer or maybe orchids or maybe Peter pepper? What?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Let me adjust: the same user who created this article also created the Legends of the Coco de Mer content fork and a number of pictures of these plants; there is no need to create yet another pointless fork article as another venue to post your pictures in. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with my pictures! What another pointless fork article I created? Could you ever simply for laughing try to assume a good faith at least once in a while you know! I guess, no.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2011 (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.