Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant (botanical)


 * 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 Closed. Nobody, including the nominator, is arguing for deletion. So there's no deletion discussion to be had. Wily D 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant (botanical)

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

Should be a redirect to the primary article: plant (which is a well developed full article). This is a discussion of a narrow taxonomic debate that would best be incorporated (if cleaned up) into the taxonomy or plant articles. No compelling reason why there should be an article on plants, talking about botanical plants, and then plants (botanical) talking about taxonomy. Shadowjams (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the comments on the talk pages for Plant (botanical) and the plant talk page linked from there? To paraphrase it: the experts need a page that details the history and changes as to what is called a plant and into what the subcategories they are divided.  The average user needs a page that tells him something about the green growing stuff outdoors and in the flower pot.  Both needs can not be met on one page because the organization of information required is different and it would also blow the page out of proportion.  The needs of the "ordinary Jo" are not really met by the current plant page because it tries to straddle the gap.  Give the new page time to grow and prune it only if it fails to bear fruit. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Props on the plant puns (seriously), but I think the "what is called a plant" issue is a taxonomic one that certainly should be referenced in the plant article, but dealt with elsewhere. My nom is a merge by another name (can't pun quite as well). Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (carefully) per nom. No need for a fork - this content should be explained at plant. If ever there is a need to split off the taxonomy information, it should have a better name than plant (botanical). Not all information is sourced, either, and a bit misleading (e.g. the section on the "Two Kingdom System" says Linnaeus classified Archaea in with plants, which isn't exactly accurate since Archaea weren't known until much later, the study of microorganisms only being about 30 years old at the time Linnaeus worked). --Rkitko (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, per Rkitko. The main plant article needs to be improved, perhaps forking some of the detailed taxonomic information into an appropriate daughter article.  Guettarda (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (carefully) per Rkitko. Hesperian 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (extremely carefully). As I've already said on Talk:Plant, we should be very careful about the wholesale adoption of a new (i.e. last decade) taxonomic scheme.  History shows that brave new schemes are often supplanted, so with something new, it should be clearly identified as such and probably shouldn't supplant more accepted (if probably out-of-date) schemes such as that favoured under, say, Five Kingdoms.  Do we have a house taxonomist who can comment?  --P LUMBAGO  08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either merge or keep under a different name. The content needs work, but it should not simply be lost be turning it into a redirect. I see nothing wrong in principle in having a spin-off article on the concept of the plant kingdom, and the different systems proposed through the ages. If there is more than can comfortably fit within Plant, then it seems a good idea to have this fork - but plant (botanical) is not the right name. Try Plant classification? Probably not - that implies classification below the level of the kingdom. Or maybe (and I think this is probably the best solution) merge this content into Plant taxonomy, which already exists as a separate article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a merge discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 26 February 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.