Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horticulture and gardening books


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of horticulture and gardening books

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

Not an encyclopedic list, really just a vague/ambiguous bibliography. There seems to be no objective standard which could be established to qualify what books/texts appropriately fit into such a list; it appears as if it will (and has been, in practice) just become a somewhat promotional "coatrack." (And as a side-effect, a bit of a linkfarm). It hasn't been maintained well (see, for example, the completely out of place quote in the lead), and I don't think there is a enough of a consistent / enforceable / clear "encyclopedic" topic behind this article to assume that it even could be improved to stand up to the scrutiny of Wikipolicies. I know the fact that this article needs cleanup and the fact that it is an orphan are not considered reasons for its deletion, but I think they are symptomatic of the fact that it "cannot" be cleaned up (I was contemplatinghow to fix it up, but ultimately came to the conclusion that it may not fit regardless, thus the AfD). Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 05:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. this list would have to include at least a thousand times more titles to even begin to be encyclopedic. i agree that some issues with the article are not reasons for deletion, but lists should have inclusion criteria that are objective, list items that either have articles or have obvious notability (many books do this, but i would hesitate to list all gardening books as notable), and should be potentially, capable of being completable or encyclopedic. i really dont see this list ever being capable of this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment per the articles talk page, if this is truly the subject of an educational project, i hope the creator or coordinator can step forward and help the project out. I would give this an F if i was a teacher. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not meant to be a complete list. In fact, that would violate NOT LIST and be INDISCRIMINATE. So it is intended as a selected list, & the talk p. is the place to discuss the criteria. We have many selected lists of readings--Indeed, we select them every time we do a further Reading section. Dilemma: if we include everything, it's indiscriminate, if we do some, it's OR, if we take some authoritative list, it's copyvio, but  we if we don't anything we aren't giving any information at all and are NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA. Yes, this article can be improved, and that applies in various degrees to everything else in Wikipedia,  As for the ac\tual list, it's a little mixed, but it's not a bad start.   DGG ( talk )
 * Comment: I don't see how this is a reason for keeping. It's a "not a bad start", but it's been sitting there like this with the only contributor to make significant changes being the creator.  As Lavatera says below, what we want is a category.  Which direction should this article go to "be improved"?  You explicate the dilemma yourself. Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple objective standard would be to list books of this sort for which there are articles on Wikipedia. The list would then perform a useful function of assisting navigation - a primary purpose of such lists.  And see this top 10 for an example of the sort of source which can be found in seconds. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "list of gardening books for which Wikipedia has an article" is not a notable topic. I'm not being trite. Think about it. Hesperian 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal of Wikipedia is presumably to contain all notable topics. Wikipedia also requires good indexes to help navigate these topics.  Notable gardening books are among these topics.  Such lists follow and assist the goals naturally rather than being a matter of self-reference.  Think about it. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: for books for which there are articles on Wikipedia would not a category do just as well? Lavateraguy (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I second this suggestion of a category. As said below, categories do not supersede lists, but the fact is, given the problems listed above by me DGG, and Mercurywoodrose, we do have particular reasons to prefer this as a category; it would be much more useful and would be automatically restricted to books we have articles on, as voters have suggested, furthermore it wouldn't have a bunch of the problems it has, being an article. Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CLS, categories do not supersede lists and we have no particular reason to prefer them .  Anyway, is there such a category?  If not, then the point is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That there isn't currently a category doesn't seem to me to moot the point; a category can always be created, if that was the consensus. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Keep if it is edited to consist only of books with articles (but see my comment below).--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: We can say it ought to be that way, but I don't think it ever will be. If I knew more than the slightest bit about the subject area, I'd try, but I don't. Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to begin cleanup: I don't want this to seem WP:POINTy, but I'm going to remove the linkfarm (which nobody here seems to support) and all books which don't have articles. Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I've done a bunch; will continue later (removed some of the links which weren't much more than PROMO, did a bit of IAR reformatting to make it look nicer as a list, reformatted the sections to make it more objective, removed out-of-place quote from the lead, placed appropriate inter-wiki links in sections where they fit—normally they'd go at the end, but they fit into this list, etc.). Later I will look into finding some more appropriate texts and internet databases to add later! Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't like lists like this, but I think it's within our content guidelines for lists. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of limiting it to books that have articles, since that's likely to add significant bias.  Rather, I'd argue that what's needed is some source that supports the idea that each listed book is a notable contribution to the subject. If, on the other hand, there's consensus that we should just list existing articles, that I think this should be converted to an Outline. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's something to be said for redlinking books that need articles, based on independent documentation of notability. But this is enough outside my field that I wouldn't know where to begin. If a horticultural expert without a COI to grind were to take on this article, we'd all be thankful; otherwise it might be best to delete and hope that someone in the future will want to achieve similar ends.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It was kind of cool to see the link to the 16th century books, and I could see the case for trying to list the "bibles" of the field (e.g. Dirr for woody plants although I have no idea whether Dirr is interesting outside the eastern US), but the can of worms factor seems to be high and I'm having trouble (a) seeing evidence that anyone cares about this article enough to work on it, (b) seeing proposed answers to the questions that DGG raises above about what the intended scope is and whether/how it fits with wikipedia policies, or (c) figuring out who would read this, and how they'd find what they want. Kingdon (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Right now it is indiscriminate. There are a gazillion crappy non-notable insightless gardening books out there, and this list apparently aims to contain them all. If someone could think of some way to scope this into something useful, then I'd say keep it. But I don't think it can be done. The topic is too nebulous. Hesperian 05:04, 1 September 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.