Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator.  Running On Brains (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete per Notability (books) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep on a benefit-of-the-doubt basis, as the other parallel noms have been strong keepers. It's clear that no WP:BEFORE check has been done. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are multiple sources establishing WP:N for this one too. They're under slightly different subtitles though, since the subtitle changed when the book was republished. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Among other refs, there's a substantial discussion of the book in Early American Nature Writers (ref [1] in the article). -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a few contemporary reviews are listed in the article. The article could be substantially expanded from the given references. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of WP:NBOOK 1. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But the question is how many refs constitute "multiple"? Two? Twenty? Two hundred? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are over 1,000 references in Google Books, in fact, under the original title of "Nature's Garden." Why would you nominate a notable and classic book of nature writing like this? -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The single line article (at the time of nomination) gave no indication of its notability and a rudimentary check did not convince me of its notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite often it's down to personal interpretation, which is where discussion and consensus come in. I think the five independent sources added since nomination are acceptable for a short article on a book published in 1900. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this one is a genuine mistake by the nominator, because of the title confusion (some of the parallel nominations are less comprehensible). However, I do wish the creators of stubs would give us more than single-line articles. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as nominator. I guess it is worthy of an article and the woolly guidelines that let though all and sundry will allow it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (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.