Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora of Romania


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Flora of Romania

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Indiscriminate, barely sourced. Seems to be verbatim from the one source that is used. Tagged as "better in list format" for years but of course no one cares. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Article looks horrible, but the topic is viable. So I'm definitely undecided.  Tigerboy1966  02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is just a list of species. Really raw data. It would be better to have an article on the plant life and ecological zones in Romania written so that it's understandable to a non-botanist. Borock (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually an article on the plant life of all Europe and a section in each country's article would be better. Borock (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rework - Indeed, the article is just full of species. But per Borock's suggestions, it should be rewritten to focus on plant life and ecological zones in Romania, instead. I don't think it should be just deleted. There is already a Category:Flora by country with some examples like Flora of Ireland and Flora of Italy. Maybe some content can be taken from Romania and Protected areas of Romania to start with. But there is plenty of stuff to write about Romania's flora for sure. Romania is certainly lucky to have more diversity than many other countries.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Codrin.B, this is a suitable topic. It's a pity that "no-one cares" about the poor presentation of the information in the article, but there's WP:NODEADLINE, and the extensive list present may be useful to someone intending to write an article on the topic later. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stub and keep Flora of X articles (were X are countries or large subdivisions) are inherently notables, as long as they are not lists of species which are best handled via categories. Circéus (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

--Mike Cline (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, nom presents no valid rationale for deletion other than WP:Indiscriminate which in this case is easily refuted via WP:NOTESAL, the list notability guideline. The following sources discuss flora of Romania as a group.
 * Flora, Vegetatia Si Potentialul Productiv Pe Masivul Vladeasa (Flora, vegetation and potential productive Vladeasa Massif), Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania,, Bucharest:, 1970
 * Bulletin de l'Herbier de l'Institut Botanique de Bucarest., Bucharest:, 1902, VLADESCO, M.C., EDITOR
 * Flora and Fauna, Ministero della Cultura,, Mosca, 1963. Cartella filatelica tematica, raccolta completa: 63 veri francobolli viaggiati, applicati con linguetta su 4 tavole (misura 27x21 cm), da vari paesi: Cina, Polonia, Mongolia, Romania, Bulgaria.
 * Mic atlas de plante din Flora Republica Socialiste România. (Small plants of Flora atlas Socialist Republic of Romania.), Bucarest, Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, 1968.
 * Cormophlora of Romania, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2012. The book presents spontaneous and cultivated cormophytes in Romania according to the Flora Europea. There are over 3800 taxa with ecological indices (humidity, temperature and soil reaction), coenotical classification and number of chromosomes.
 * THE RED BOOK OF VASCULAR PLANTS OF ROMANIA-A monographic book “The Red Book of Vascular Plant of Romania” has been published in 2009 at the Publishing House of the Romanian Academy. This book, of national and regional Balkan interest contains, in more than 600 pages, the description of 548 taxa (species and subspecies). A micro-monography is presented for each taxon, with information concerning the description of the taxon, conservation status, taxonomy (with iconography), chorology (including the map of distribution at national level), area, habitat, cenology, biology, importance, limitative factors, conservation measures, and references. Page 29
 * Keep Topic is certainly good and notable.  Not sure about the content and sources.   North8000 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keepp This isn't article clean-up. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stub and keep per Circeus. Someday there will be an interesting article at this title.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Is this an encyclopedic topic? No question. Is this a way that people would normally present this information? Of course not. Is this presentation more useful than a normal-style encyclopedia article? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there are specialists who would dig it. Is the fact that this article is non-standard a valid rationale for deletion? Emphatically NO — this is an editing matter to be handled through normal content debate and resolution processes. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bad article, obviously notable topic. -- 202.124.75.53 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As noted above, bad article, but obviously notable topic; ok if marked as a stub. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic; perhaps the list could be replaced by a translation of the Romanian wikipedia article. --Melburnian (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominate states it is indiscriminate, but in fact it only list flora found in Romania. And of course, no one cares about pointless tags.  If you want something done, do it yourself, don't just toss down a tag and expect someone else to do what you want.  This is an obviously encyclopedic topic.  Other sources can easily be found, as Mike Cline has proved up above.  AFD is not cleanup.   D r e a m Focus  16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think every person commenting here here, probably including the nominator, feels like an authentic encyclopedia article on this topic is appropriate. I just want to make the quick point that in that eventuality this should be retained as a sub-page List of Flora of Romania — which is really not a bad name for the piece even now, come to think of it. It's a fantastic piece of work in its own way, although probably of extremely narrow utility to all but a few botanists. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly the existing article should be split into a stub containing the four paragraphs of text, and a separate list article. -- 202.124.72.68 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (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.