Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syllable stress of classical botanical names


 * 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The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Syllable stress of classical botanical names

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Falls into WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Not wikified. No references. No context. Even if the article was about syllable stress of classical botanical names and not a list, I am not sure it would be notable (but I wouldn't know, because there are no references). tdmg 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Retracted Is no longer a list, is wikified, referenced, has context, and notability. Good job you guys. tdmg 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Nothing but unreferenced information with zero context. Someguy1221 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh. This is why I always recommend building articles in a sandbox.  Over 99% of articles that look like deletable material upon their initial creation never get improved.  Someguy1221 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, sorry. The page already had a (red)link on our discussion page, I was lazy, I clicked it and started it.


 * Three minutes after the article was created! Are you Speedy Gonzales's nerd cousin? ;-) We are discussing the creation of this article in Project Plants. The main source is a German book, Flora von Deutschland. The main part of the article will be a list also when finished, we'll move it if we find a better title. Just be patient, it will be OK in a matter of days, I've only forgotten undercontruction tag. Aelwyn 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have given it more time if I thought that it could become an article that is appropriate for Wikipedia.  However, it does not look like any amount on content and explanation will make this anything more than a list and it will never escape WP:NOT and WP:NOT.  I am not AfDing it because I think that the information is useless and can't be made useful, I am AfDing it because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  tdmg 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I now realise how you WP is actually made only of top-quality encyclopaedic articles, like List of postal codes, List of Prison Break characters or Sadism and masochism in fiction. But no, mine (ours) is about science, delete it before it can do any harm like being useful to students or occupying space on the servers (which is needed to host Old English Wikipedias, Many useful photos and cover thousands of important topics like Teledildonics). Aelwyn 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of the page. Aelwyn 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) And the content of the page is some precious information, usually very difficult to get. Each of the Latin names you see has a fixed stress, which is often unknown to students and can sometimes be a problem also for expert botanists. A list of names with the accent mark is then valuable.

Delete, sorry but I really don't feel a list like this belongs on Wikipedia, could it be transwikied to Wiktionary? Would it even belong there? (I don't know because I don't really use that project too much). Na uf ana :  talk  22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aelwyn, I have to go with everyone else on this, this does not require a list, but a paragraph of rules, with a couple of good references, including the one you mentioned plus Stearn and a couple of others he mentions. The list is useless if you have to check every word for its accent, and that's not how it's done.  Stearn is the best modern primary source on syllable stresses in Botanical Latin.  KP Botany 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The subject is noteworthy, there are multiple distinct sources on Botanical Latin pronunciation, including texts (Stearn's and Allen's, recommended for botanists, although designed for Classical, the German work Aelwyn cites, and the Royal Horticultural Society's "Pronunciation of botanical names," by Stearn, this being the most often cites work, so well worth mentioning outside of the large tome on Botanical Latin, and the world famous 1951 book on pronouncing botanical and zoological Latin by the Swede Erik Wiken, Latin för Botanister och Zoologer).
 * Comment again, this is not about the notability or it's importance, it's about it being a list/directory, which is what Wikipedia is not. Please address the reasons provided for deletion.  tdmg 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That matter has been dealt with, it is no longer a list. Please address the article that exists.  KP Botany 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are now references, but lack of references is not a deletion criteria, notability is. A simply search on the pronunciation of Botanical Latin might have led to this conclusion.   There is absolutely no reason to delete this article, it's intention as titled.  A list?  That should be a different article, but let's go with what we have now and settle this article is notable, does not need deleted, does not require any more discussion about deletion.  It's a weighty topic.  KP Botany 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems encyclopedic to me, a little more weighty than you say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to... Carlossuarez46 00:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's a notable subject, it's sourced, and it's still under construction. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:08, 7 July 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.