Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Weeds of Queensland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Weeds of Queensland

Common Weeds of Queensland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Harland1 (t/c) 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, at least for the time being (until it has been wikified): The article does not seem to be part of a "directory" at all. The title should be changed to Common weeds of Queensland though. <KF> 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - work to be done but seems reasonably encyclopedic to me, not inappropriate for WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ian Rose. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it needs to be wikified, but I don't see the "directory" at all. Macy's123 review me 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.Spinningspark (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but rename to something about the invasive plant species of the region as classified in the article, using classes that are defined by the govt. JJL (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't a "directory", it's a perfectly reasonable topic which just needs some tidying up. Invasive weeds are a big issue in Australia generally. Nick mallory (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, but fail to see what that has to do with this article. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This doesn't look like a directory entry at all. It's a referenced description of the classification system, and a (currently) small list of entries. It's a bit obscure and needs some wikifying but seems perfectly suitable for an article. --Canley (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a directory, it's a list. It does what Wikipedia lists do: Identifies a set of things by significant criteria that readers are likely to want (class of things: weeds; geographic loction: Queensland), it addresses a useful topic for people looking up information (usefulness is a good justification for a Wikipedia list, as opposed to an article), it is an encyclopedic topic, and it helps readers navigate through Wikipedia. Even if we address a topic like this with an article, we'd want a list in that article. We should have more lists like this -- types of fauna or flora by geographic location. Noroton (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a useful list. Could probably be renamed from the slightly awkward title though. Lankiveil (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Acceptable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 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.