Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ)


 * 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. Renaming can be discussed on the various article talk pages. --Core desat  01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of flora (LCRV)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Series of pages that are nothing more than a bloated image gallery. Circeus 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to serve a similar purpose as a field guide. All of the images appear to be from the linked articles, so hopefully copyright has already been resolved.  I think it's fine as per Lists in Wikipedia.Chunky Rice 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's encyclopedic information that is genuinely useful. However, it's very region-specific. Could we do better than abbreviate the placename to 'LCRV'? - Richardcavell 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Encylopedic and useful. Similar in discussion to Articles for deletion/Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very useful both as general encyclopedic reference and as a resource for editors. --Selket Talk 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Remember that an encyclopedia is not defined entirely as textual. Mkdw talk 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to something without the LCRV acronym. --Pak21 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems a good guide that has a place in wikipedia. User:ANHL
 * Delete Relates only to the Lower Colorado River Valley, the LCRV of the title. It would be useful if it was non-geographic (i.e. covered the world, or at least a continent) and I suspect some of the comments made above may have been made on the basis that that is what it is. Otherwise, to be encyclopaedic, we need the same sets of pages for every conceivable regon in the world, including my back garden! So, it's not a similar discussion to Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems, but it would parallel Gallery of Scout and Guide emblems from the Lower Colorado River Valley.Emeraude 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, that would be less useful. There's a reason that field guides are generally region specific.  A guide for the entire world would simply not be practical to look through.Chunky Rice 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment But this is not a field guide, it's an encyclopaedia entry. Emeraude 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the same logic aplies. If you're trying to visually identify a plant, sorting by region makes sense.Chunky Rice 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certain sorts of information lend themselves to being presented in a gallery. Pictures of plants for recognition are one of them.  The fact that we got a collection of plants from the lower Colorado valley first is not grounds to delete it either. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a collection of region specific field guide. The lack of sources also imply a failure on OR and other aspects of WP:ATT. Nuttah68 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful, encyclopedic information. The argument that it is a select area doesn't stand. It just means we haven't gotten around to creating more pages like that. --Infrangible 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems extremely useful, though I second Pak21's suggestion to "rename to something without the LCRV acronym" Tt 225 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but do something about the name. I wish we had many more of these articles. Noroton 00:43, 14 March 2007 (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.