Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant cover


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. No outstanding "delete" votes and numerous changes. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Plant cover

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Only source is an original research paper written as an essay by the author of this article. This article is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, and the text arrives at a conclusion. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  I've worked with and taught the use of quadrats, so I know the principle concerned with them. This doesn't go any further than mention an alternative method, which I can't work out from its name(s). The first part (about the common method - quadrats) is already covered in the article on this method. The last part tells nothing and could be OR. There is a possibility of COI, too, as the creator claims to be Christian Damgaard, and refers only to Christian Damgaard's work. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep following improvements. (I can't see the new method of assessing cover being any less subjective, but if it's used, it's used. Personal opinion and cynicism.) Peridon (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording and added a new reference on the issue of subjectivity - Christian Damgaard (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

--

I have now included more references. I think the page should be modified rather that deleted. Plant cover is a concept that is very often used in plant ecology (67.700.000 hits in Google)

Christian Damgaard
 * Comment The refs look better now - but the article still doesn't address the difference between the two methods of assessing cover. I assume this newer method is the point of the article. Peridon (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I have made a few revisions, including adding a ref to quadrat, and added some more information on the pin-point method. Christian Damgaard  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Damgaard (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite the refs being "improved", I find it completely unacceptable that this topic has a Christian Damgaard essay used as a source, since the article was written by Christian Damgaard. We don't put thesis papers or other WP:OR on here. That information needs to be removed. Huge WP:COI and ADVERT there. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong opinion - I think of myself as an expert on the subject, but please modify the page Christian Damgaard (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Damgaard paper is not an "essay" or a "thesis paper" but a peer-reviewed journal article, which is perfectly acceptable as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

--


 * I have modified the page once more, now the conclusion is ommited Christian Damgaard (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2010 (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.