Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomato cultivars


 * 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; withdrawal came too late to stop the AfD going ahead, but the arguments are strong that this is a potentially manageable and useful list that does not necessarily require original research. Views are running that way, as well, and in all the circs I think an early "keep" closure justified. Metamagician3000 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of tomato cultivars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value. List is unmanageable, and invites own research, commercial advertising, and poor-quality content. Jerry 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn request closure as keep by WP:SNOW. Since being shown the list for basil, which made it to featured status, and doing some more research, I realize this list has the POTENTIAL to be good.  The current quality is not a valid basis for deletion. Jerry 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think that very many people would find this article useful. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, i have a problem with lists, not tomatoes. the_undertow talk  02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NOT.-- Bryson { Talk } { Edits } 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:NOT that objects to this. Please explain. Thanks, Caknuck 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the information is encyclopedic and presented in a way appropriate for this sort of list. It is by no means indiscriminate, as only the few best known ones are included--there are actually hundreds. That many people will be interested is shown by the great variety of cultivars--it is applicable not just to gardeners but to cooks as well. . IAMNOTINTERESTEDMYSELF is not a reason for deletion. DGG 03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Detailed list that certainly serves a purpose by comparing numerous tomato varieties. There are similar lists for apples, basil (a featured list), peppers and mangoes. My only criticism of this list is the lack of sourcing. Caknuck 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This seems to me to be the definition of encyclopedic information, and there's no reasonable way to provide it other than a list. Yes, it needs sourcing, and perhaps a tag or so would not be remiss, but - I'm surprised to see what seems to me to be a clearly encyclopedic article nominated. It would be like nominating a list of subspecies of an animal in a case where each subspecies did not have its own article. Editing because somehow I got signed out. -- Charlene 05:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, doesn't fail WP:NOT. It improves this encyclopaedia - Ctbolt 06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs some referencing, but this is useful encyclopedic information. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's encyclopedic information. - Richard Cavell 11:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - there's a qualitative difference between a finite, sourceable & informative list such as this and the List of fictional characters with large breasts type of listcruft. This list is the vegetable equivalent of the periodic table. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Tomatoes are not vegetables. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not, in fact, interested myself, but it's not hard for me to see how such a list could be useful, and it should be simple to keep it based in fact and even cited. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if we keep it, it needs to be cut down A LOT. Maybe we should only include outstanding cultivars or something. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable article, plus it's useful and well drawn up. Could use some references though.  P.B. Pilhet  21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all but needs sourcing.  V 6 0  干什么？ · VDemolitions  ·  ER 3 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Baristarim 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, needs more citations but is encyclopedic and useful. Note that the nomination withdrawal does not cancel the AFD as there are delete votes. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 15 April 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.