Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants for Biblical gardens


 * 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 as a clearly notable concept, moved to List of plants in the Bible as a better title (the plants for botabical gardens are plants mentioned in the bible anyway). I have deleted the clone version that existed at List of plants in the Bible earlier, since the history of this page had to be preserved. The page does need cleanup, better sourcing (secondary sources for the actual identification of the plants), and so on, but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. Fram (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of plants for Biblical gardens

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article consists of purely original reasearch, as it's a list of plants that was mentioned in the bible. Delete Secret account 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per the above and ... what's a Biblical garden? eaolson (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Apparently, “A Bible Garden is any garden that has plants that are mentioned in the Bible.” This seems to be (metaphorically speaking) something that someone made up in school one day.  It would be considerably more impressive if a BG had all the plants that are mentioned in the Bible, but that would still be something made up in school one day. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This may just be “something someone made up in school one day”, or it may be an attempt to promote BiblicalGardens.org by creating a social infrastructure with smoke and mirrors. Either way, it fails WP:NOTE. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amend to keep, in response to some of the arguments presented by Tameeria below, especially from the search for the phrase “biblical botanical garden”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N, seems like an advert/spam for the BiblicalGardens website SlamDiego mentioned. Doc Strange (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and rename. The only problem is the title, a retitling to something like List of plants mentioned in the Bible is needed. The content is easily notable, have a look at the thousands of entries on Google Scholar and Google Books for starters. Melburnian (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I, for one, could accept such a move. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a search on Google books indicates that this is actually a notable subject - at least one the titles is from Cambridge University Press. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, what the Google book search reveals is that plants mentioned in the Bible is a notable subject. The article in question is about a sort of botanical garden.  Possibly replacing the article with one on Plants mentioned in the Bible (or converting the present article thereto) would be approved by consensus. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that just isn't correct. The phrase "Biblical garden" itself gets over 2000 hits on Google books. So this is clearly a notable subject, suprising though that is to me and, I'm sure, to others. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the phrase does not. You'll get that same number of hits by entering “garden biblical”, because you're not entering a phrase. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I note that when one does enter the phrase, the results are misleading because it picks up such things as “Biblical Garden of Eden ”, which is plainly something else. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first two listings are named "A Biblical Garden" and "Your Biblical Garden", the second describing itself as "a discussion of extant biblical gardens and the flowers, herbs, vegetables, fruit, and trees mentioned in the Bible". So that indicates to me that this is an established and notable concept, albeit perhaps not a particular well known one. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And on the first page alone I can find at least four books mentioning "Biblical gardens in the United States" that one can visit. So obviously growing Biblical gardens is something that people do, and something that plenty of people have written about - including at least one book from a University press. So it seems pretty clear to me that this is a notable subject. Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So your standard of notability is met by four books? How widely read are these books? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more than just four books. A search for the phrase excluding the term Eden still brings up 332 hits on Google books. I don't understand how the question how widely read they are would impact notability. The top three most on-topic books regarding this page are probably "Your Biblical Garden: Plants of the Bible and How to Grow Them" by Allan Swenson, "Plants of the Biblical Garden" by Robert Whitsell and "The Biblical Garden: List of Plants" published by N.Y. Cathedral of St. John the Divine. - tameeria (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One needs to exclude not only the Garden of Eden, but that of Gethsemane, of Solomon, &c. Lots of works will mention gardens in the bible without being about the same sort of garden as this article.
 * Not all books are notable. Books that are widely read are ipso facto notable.  That's not the only way in which a book might be notable, but Gatoclass gave us inadequate reason to believe that he'd found four notable books.  Now, you specifically name some books.  What makes these books notable? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's still 312 hits, plus any way you look at it, the vast majority of the first few pages of hits in any of these searches do not refer to any of the gardens mentioned in the bible.
 * A specialty book would certainly not be "widely read" but it would still be notable for that particular specialty. Some of these books are referenced elsewhere as having been used in the selection of plants for a biblical garden (e.g. ) and therefore I would think they are notable for the topic. - tameeria (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But do those 312 hits (a much diminished number from the original “over 2000”) suffer from problems that are similar in principle? And you shouldn't expect editors here to pore over evidence that doesn't work under its submitter's interpretation, on the possibility that it might work under some other interpretation, especially if the submitter him- or herself has twice failed to produce interpretations that survive even cursory scrutiny.
 * Yes, I already acknowledged that wide readership is “not the only way in which a book might be notable”, and asked how the books in question were notable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article doesn't need replacing, it just needs renaming. It's not about gardens at all, it's a list of plants. --Melburnian (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I agree that a move could make the present body of the article acceptable. However, until it is moved, it is about a sort of garden. (If someone listed all the members of, say, the Trilateral Commission as People who should be killed, the article wouldn't be just a list of the members of the Trilateral Commission, until it was moved.  Under its title, it would be about assassination.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So let's move/rename it, no point throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Melburnian (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BOLD-and-all-that, a clone, purged of reference to “Bible gardens” and to “Biblical gardens”, now exists at Plants mentioned in the Bible. If someone wishes to subject that to a separate AfD, that will be another matter. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I acknowledge you've done that in good faith, actions resulting from this AfD should be determined and carried out by the closing admin. If the consenus was "Keep and rename/redirect" then the article should be moved to preserve page history (in this case 2 years of edits) Melburnian (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really no different from what is happening with respect to AfD/Rat excitation, and if the admin concludes that the article should instead simply be deleted (by consensus), then he or she can just delete both; likewise, if the vote is for simply keeping, then the admin could speedy delete the clone. (I'd tag it myself, if no one else did.) The original article needed more that just renaming to overcome the arguments for deletion. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it need more than just renaming? Melburnian (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated, it needed reference to “Bible gardens” and to “Biblical gardens” purged. The “External links” section of the original article is mostly such reference.  A consensus of simple keep, however, would argue for its preservation, so purging the original article is not presently acceptable.  And AfD is not supposed to burden the closing admin with picking through the article.  We needed the choices disentangled. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, according to Google Books, "Biblical gardens" itself is a notable subject, as I posted above. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as explained in immediate reply, your search merely proved the notability of Biblical plants. If a “Biblical Garden” were merely a garden some of whose plants are mentioned in the Bible, then anything with a crocus or a lily in it would be a “Biblical Garden”.  Nothing indicates that the books turned-up by your search is about gardens dominated by Biblical plants, or containing only Biblical plants.  You are begging the very question.  EoS.
 * You are proving my point that some editors will vote for a simple keep. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, whenever you read the word “needed”, identify the “for what”. Your “No” says that you lost the context: “needed … to overcome the arguments for deletion”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdenting) Google books indicates that "Biblical garden" is a notable subject and so is "Biblical plants". What you now appear to be wanting to debate is whether the content of this article accurately reflects the meaning of "Biblical garden". But that's a content issue, not an issue for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have yet to establish that “Biblical Garden” denotes a notable subject. As noted above, you confused a mere pairing of keywords with a phrase. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, when one does enter the phrase, the results are misleading because it picks up such things as “Biblical Garden of Eden ”, which is plainly something else. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just looking at Google, including books and scholar and excluding the term "Eden" while searching for the phrase "biblical garden," I would conclude that biblical gardens are indeed a notable subject. E.g. there are 2,830 Google hits for the phrase "biblical botanical garden" and at least one such garden is clearly notable (plenty of books and articles about it) and has a page on Wikipedia: Rodef Shalom Biblical Botanical Garden. A Google scholar search brings up e.g. this paper: Wodarczyk, Z. (2004): "Biblical gardens in dissemination of ideas of the Holy Scripture." Folia Horticulturae Vol. 16, 141-147), which is a research publication on 13 biblical gardens throughout the world. However, biblical gardens is not the topic of the article in question; its just a list of plants used in such gardens. - tameeria (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your “biblical botanical garden” is good search, with what I regard as a telling result. I am therefore amending my opinion. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I notice that the original article and the clone both list such things as “pine” and “flowers”. This suggests the problematic nature of the list as its contributors have conceptualized it.  Consider "Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." That picks up every cultivar that the author(s) would have believed existed in that first week-or-so. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (and probably rename). The subject of plants mentioned in the bible is notable.  The whole thing about "gardens" seems kind of nit-picky to me (although I guess I prefer the title without that word, and whether an article on biblical gardens would be notable isn't the issue right now although I will note that there are plenty of such gardens, for example at the San Antonio Botanical Gardens and Strybing Arboretum).  As for the content fork between Plants mentioned in the Bible and List of plants for Biblical gardens, I see that  has just today created the former with the edit summary "Clone and purge from List of plants for Biblical gardens".  A content fork is not the way to solve these problems.  If we want a rename, we should rename (rather than cloning), and any purging should be done in place.  The article needs a lot of work (in particular, inline citations, probably even with page numbers, would help track down entries which confuse one plant for another, and the like, which is a constant problem for lists like these).  But that's not a reason to delete it. (For an example of a related article which is in somewhat better shape, see Rose of Sharon). Kingdon (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will act to have the clone deleted (or made a redirection) if it results in parallel (or nearly parallel) articles. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there are a number of such gardens world wide maintained by Botanical societies, there are books covering the topic (even scholarly ones covering the plants of the Bible), and normel every day gardeners attempt to produce such collections of plants. Just because the nominating person has never heard of the concept, does not mean the page should be deleted - just means he/she never bothered to look for info on the topic. Hardyplants (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a google link for interested parties to look at:http://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+biblical+garden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Hardyplants (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or rename to something like "list of plants used in biblical botanical gardens" - The subject seems notable to me as several books exist that could be used as references. There are a number of these gardens worldwide, some notable in literature searches. I don't think this list would be merely a list of plants mentioned in the bible (although the two lists would certainly overlap a lot). One of the conclusions of research on biblical gardens reads: "In the climatic conditions of Europe and the USA, where the cultivation of hot climate plants is not possible, some biblical plants are replaced with related species of similar appearance or original species grown in containers." Therefore, a list of plants for biblical gardens (from a practical gardening standpoint) might actually include plants not specifically mentioned in the bible but merely look-alikes. - tameeria (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be a little more complicated than this, and the title of the page ((plants for Biblical gardens)) is a good one if taken to represent the entire spectrum of the concept of biblical plants. In the narrowest sense we have plants of the bible, in other regions there can be plants related to bibilacal figures and events ( most common in Europe I belie- but don't hold me to it) So for instance a plant that is not in the Bible might be in a biblical gardened because of some tie in with the bible by mythology or folklore or because it was used as a theological teaching tool, an example is Pulmonaria or dogwood. Hardyplants (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apparently, it is OR and does not meet standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larno Man (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll withdraw this AFD if someone writes an article on Biblical garden and merge some content there Secret account 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

- These are just some of the titles I have selected from the first 3 or 4 pages of Google Books under the search string "Biblical Garden". If you do a Google book search on, say, Plants of the Bible, you get thousands of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete this article, but if anyone wants to write an article on Biblical gardens, feel free, as it seems like that is an encyclopaedic topic. A list of plants that can be found in one is probably not. Terraxos (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is a Biblical garden if not a garden made up of plants mentioned in the Bible? The article gives a source, a book published by Cambridge University Press. And the Google book search shows there are plenty of other books listing such plants. So there is no reason I can see why there shouldn't be a list of plants for a Biblical garden here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that answer were obviously correct, then gardens in which substitutions were openly made (because of climate) would not be represented as Biblical gardens. And, as I have noted, Genesis 2:5 makes exclusion of almost any plant problematic.  The term needs to have its various definitions discussed. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are Girl Scout Cookies if not cookies made from Girl Scouts? Torc2 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: pure original research and not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A Biblical Garden by Carol Lerner, published by Morrow: "Descriptions and pictures of twenty plants mentioned in the Old Testament, including fig, lentil, olive, papyrus, and pomegranate."
 * Your Biblical Garden: Plants of the Bible and How to Grow Them By Allan A. Swenson Published 1981 by Doubleday: "Practical information on gardening combines with a discussion of extant biblical gardens and the flowers, herbs, vegetables, fruit, and trees mentioned in the Bible."
 * Plants of the Bible: And How to Grow Them By Allan A. Swenson, Citadel Press 1995: " The book's emphasis is on flowers, vegetables, and herbs, but trees and fruit are not neglected. In addition, Mr. Swenson describes biblical gardens in both North America and Israel which interested readers can visit."
 * Plants of the Biblical Garden By Robert H. Whitsell, published 1976
 * The Biblical Garden on the Grounds of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine by Sarah Larkin Loening, 1990
 * California and Las Vegas, 1990 By Mary Rakauskas, published by Prentice Hall 1990: Contains mention of two Biblical gardens one can visit in these states.
 * The Biblical Garden of the Church of the Wayfarer By Esther Simpson, Marie Farley, 1968
 * North American Horticulture, a Reference Guide By Jane S. Keough, Judy Judy Powell, Barbara W. Ellis, American Horticultural Society, 1985: Mentions 3 Biblical gardens one can visit.
 * Catholic Traditions in the Garden By Ann Ball, 1998: A chapter on the subject, entitled "Bible and Medieval Gardens", which begins Since about the turn of the century, many people have planted Biblical gardens. These are gardens in which the plants are selected in accordance with those referenced in Scripture....
 * An academic paper listing some of the famous Biblical Gardens one can visit around the world.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to have this article when we have Biblical Gardens and Plants mentioned in the Bible. merge with one of them. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Plants mentioned in the Bible as it is nothing more than a copy of that article. In fact, can we speedy this? Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of plants in the Bible, the very same plants that would go into a Biblical garden.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrrgh! All three of the articles mentioned are copies! Support redirect of others into List of plants in the Bible. Mangoe (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable and not original research.  The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion.  Relisting this when it was discussed at length before seems otiose.  No consensus is better since we have no deadline and the material will benefit from further editing over the fullness of time. "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the subject bores me, it appears to be notable enough. However, I do feel an article on the idea of a "Biblical garden" should be authored soon. See, and . There are a plethora of secondary sources to be found, also—the majority of which do not mean Biblical garden of Eden. Strange subject, to be sure. But I don't choose what is or is not notable, because published authors do that. In this case, there is too much evidence pointing to this being a real subject. (Mind meal (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
 * An article on Biblical gardens already exists! Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That article was created in response to this AFD. How this topic is covered is a matter of content editing and we should just leave it to the interested editors rather than deleting anything.   Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The concept is clearly notable, as shown by the books about the subject-- "Plants of the Bible" is actually a Library of  Congress official subject heading--there are so many  books primarily on that specific subject--(56 in their catalog)   DGG (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as sufficient sources have been mentioned throughout this discussion to effectively assert notability and provide verifiability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. John254 00:37, 10 February 2008 (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.