Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantpot


 * 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. Keep in some form, that is; whether and where to it should be moved or merged is not clear from this discussion and remains an editorial decision to be taken. But there's consensus that the general subject of flower pots (however spelled) is a fit subject for an encyclopedia article.  Sandstein  17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plantpot

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am proposing we delete this page as it is a non-term. I have never seen the term written without a space and is hence a non-specific adjective attached to a noun. The term is hence nonsearchable. Not much shows up on google either. Given this, the mere existence of the page's name is in some way Original Research. Some material could be salvaged but it needn't be at this article. A possible alternative is a new article at pot plant, which is currently a redirect to houseplant (although I don't view them as synonymous). Anyway, let's see what y'all think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I get enough Google Book returns to convince me that this article is okay except the name. I always heard these called "flower pots", but to increase the generality I propose moving to "plant container" or something like that. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. Basically, I agree with Abductive. The subject matter is encyclopedic, but the page name is odd. (There is plenty more that could be added, including aesthetics and agricultural aspects.) Currently, "flower pot" redirects to this page, and one option would be to simply turn the redirect around. Given that non-flowering and non-ornamental plants (such as food plants) are also grown in containers, I would prefer, instead, renaming the page as "plant container" and redirecting both "flower pot" and "plantpot" to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with that - I notice that Flower pot was moved to plantpot last year. Flowerpot is definitely a notable term, but is it too narrow? A more inclusive term would be better, but what? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. To what, I'm not certain. I'd say that the simple 'pot' is acceptable, the primary use of the term will be the horticultural. For clarity and the wider public use, 'flower pot' may be the best term. Plant containers are not always pots. Imc (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that main use is horticultural - take a look at Pottery. Still scratching my head on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "pot" would be too general. I'm increasingly leaning towards "plant container" over "flower pot" to include containers for non-flowering plants. As for potential notability once properly revised, it's at least somewhat useful to take a look at Hanging Gardens of Babylon and Hydroponics. Not that those are perfect examples, but they give some sense of what a page like this one could come to include. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No matter what name you move it to, it'll be an unreferenced dictionary entry. Are there really reliable sources that describe the usage, construction, history, and aesthetics of plant containers? If consensus is to move, I'd also probably pick plant container. Rkitko (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are reliable accounts of plant containers. After all, they have to be made, there is a substantial market for them and there are entire industries devoted to providing them. Depending on country/region, there are local standards for their sizes shapes et.c.. Long time since I studied horticulture though, so I won't promise to dig up references for these. Imc (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update - oh crud, look what I found --> Container garden. This is where material should be moved. Question is, merge and delete or merge and redirect? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect would avoid this discussion again in a few years when the article is re-created.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. A merge to Container garden makes sense for now, as both articles are pretty short (both are also poorly referenced, but given the 3 zillion garden books published, I'm sure that is fixable). I could imagine at some point splitting out a larger article just on the pots (especially from an artistic point of view), just as we have both cornice and architecture, but I'm not too sure whether that will make sense and it seems like a lot of articles for a small amount of text right now. (If you want more to think about, browse through "what links here" which shows a pretty wide variety of aspects to the topic). Kingdon (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this merge idea. Container gardens are generally outdoors and about gardening, and the containers are much more large and varied in their construction. Flowerpots are objects with a long history of their own. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abductive that a merge into Container garden would be problematic. I still prefer "plant container". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The names of flowerpots from the articles on other wikis are amusing to me. Pod-bleunioù, Blumentopf, Florpoto, Pot de fleurs, Bloempot, Kukkaruukku and Kruka are my favs. Also, none redirect to a container garden artcle. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move back to flowerpot. In British English, at least, "flowerpot" is the common name for this, whether it contains a flowering plant or not (I was brought up watching "Bill and Ben the flowerpot men" not "Bill and Ben the plantpot men"). If this is different in other varieties of English then the grandfather clause of WP:ENGVAR needs to be invoked. A merge to container garden would be wrong because flowerpots are used in many other contexts, for example for houseplants, in plant nurseries and as an addition to normal gardens. Notability isn't an issue, with these books being about the subject, and these academic papers:. They can also be a health hazard. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, virtually all the article is relevant to flowerpot anyway. Shall we just close this and move it back to flowerpot then? Or let it run for five days?Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are flower pots in British and American English, who calls them Plantpots? Anyway, since there have been no votes for delete, Casliber can withdraw this nomination. Actually, one vote, oh well. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator appears to be an Aussie it looks like another variety of English can be excluded. Do any speakers of Indian English, Canadian English, Irish English, South African English or any other of the myriad varieties want to speak up in favo(u)r of "plantpot"? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, plus move to flowerpot; this is clearly a significant topic (enough so that we could bend notability guidelines if necessary) that should be covered by an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to flowerpot.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move as mentioned. The name is indeed flower pot, even in cases where it may seem illogical.   DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move back to flowerpot (or flower pot). It's a notable topic (there are whole books on it: Keeling 2004, ISBN 9781570762734; Needham, 1998, ISBN 9781579900656), but let's use a word people actually use for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, flowerpot or flower pot is fine, and charmingly quaint. Flower pot with the space is about twice as common in all Google searches. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier, I argued for "plant container", but after reading the subsequent comments, I now agree that a rename to "Flower pot" (two words) is the best solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I can imagine an article about this covering various interesting and encyclopedic aspects—history, manufacturing, recycling, economics—unlike Abductive above I have not been able to find evidence that reliable information exists. It is all very well to observe that flower pots have a history, but if no-one has written a history of flower pots then nor must we. Hesperian 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Plenty of people have written books about flower pots, as you will see if you follow my and David Eppstein's links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename: as the article name doesn't seem satisfactory, a move can be done to pot (plants). This thus basically keeps the name to pot (which will give satisfactory hits on the search engine) yet is differs itself from the pot article because of the added (plant).
 * KVDP (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to keep changing my mind with successive comments by other editors, but I like that suggestion of "Pot (plants)" even better than "Flower pot". In any case, keep and rename. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Planter (moving the dab page there to Planter (disambiguation) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 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.