Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lichen: Graphis Primer

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 delete. Majorly 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphis (lichen)

Looks like a lecturer using Wikipedia as a free host to store notes for his students. So far from being a proper article that we might as well rub it out and wait for someone to start again. -- RHaworth 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT ("A How to...") – Bubba HoTep 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, without prejudice: fairly obviously a worthwhile subject. Our coverage of lichen species is so sparse, though, that I'd be tempted to keep this, even though it is hardly encyclopedic in its current form. Perhaps it should be userfied at User:Garengaston and the author invited to rework it into encyclopedia style. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I rather disagree with the above. The nominator is, I suspect, right in his suspicions about a lecturer getting free hosting. But that's not the point: the question is "Is this article about a notable subject for which we can find references, and which can be covered in an NPOV way ?" I'm inclined to say "yes", so on that basis I'm plumping for Keep, but with a tag for a substantial Cleanup, including removal of any OR and "How To" elements. The author should be encouraged to do some of the cleaning himself - he might even persuade his students to help, and maybe to improve our coverage of other lichen, for some extra credit ( I believe we have a way of handling this ). WMMartin 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of small changes to the first couple of paragraphs of the article, to show how it might be re-cast. Still needs lots of work. Anyone know how to do a "taxobox" ? WMMartin 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per original nomination, without prejudice against re-creation if it can be made encyclopedic. The submitter must surely be aware that just throwing in some not-well-organized information about a single genus isn't going to fit smoothly into existing categories. It's the meshing with what's here already that needs doing, and hasn't been attempted at all. EdJohnston 17:41, 18 January 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.