Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:A list of trees used for medicinal purposes

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Note: This is a blatant copyvio of offthegridnews.com — xaosflux  Talk 12:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:A list of trees used for medicinal purposes

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 01:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 01:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced draft for an odd cross-section. "Trees" and "medicinal purposes" are both probably too vague for a cross-list in contrast to both being kept in separate categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I see potential.  "Trees" and "medicinal purposes" is not an odd cross-sections.  Trees, being long lived non-vascular living things, have many substances of pharmacological potential.  What is the reason for mentioning categories, the draft is not a category.  Category intersection may be of interest.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1. No reason offered for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made that view a week ago. You don't need to double vote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider it a response to the relister who is de-facto !voting that there remained a prima facie case for deletion, which I dispute. SwisterTwister's boiler plate barely intelligible rationale below not withstanding.  There is a lot of ideas for content in the draft, although not necessarily destined to be a stand alone article, it does look like mainspace-suitable material.  It probably is in mainspace, possibly scattered, already.  I maintain that this is a draft with potential that should not be deleted for merely being old, a position well supported in multiple related RfCs.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as regardless there's still nothing better, basic housekeeping. SwisterTwister   talk  23:28, 7 August 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.