Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo species

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. John254 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo species

I tried redirecting this to Taxonomy of the Bambuseae but was reverted, so here we are. This article consists of a lead copy/pasted from Bamboo; a grossly oversized collection of images that have little relevance to the article's topic, since nearly all of them fail to specify the species depicted; and a list that is largely duplicative of Taxonomy of the Bambuseae and the articles linked therein. (The references are also malformed, making it impossible to identify the sources of particular statements.) In short, there seems no reason for this particular presentation of material, for which a structured series of articles already exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong KeepOne of the reasons this article should be kept is written in the above paragraph, "a structured series of articles already exists". A series of articles is one reason this article should be kept. The modern human wants to know things, and they want to know it know. Someone is more likely to just 'Ctrl+f' to find something on one page, than have to go to one page, then to another, then another just to find something they could find on one page. Many criticizers of this article will probably say something like "This article is an incomplete list". That is a valid concern. The article is a work in progress, and since there are over 1,000 species of Bamboo, it will take a while. However I have been making sure that I add at least 5 species to the list a day, and I often add more than that. Although it isn't complete yet, in just a month and a half, over 25% of the species were added to the list. Like the above paragraph states, the first paragraph of Bamboo species was word for word from the original article Bamboo. However, the second paragraph of the article, which also appears in the Bamboo article was cut from Bamboo species and pasted in Bamboo. I have changed the first paragraph. Since the second paragraph originated here, I will not edit or remove it from the Bamboo species article. If someone desires they may edit or remove it from the Bamboo article. The above paragraph also states that this article's sources are "malformed" That is because different sources were for different columns of the table. It would be nearly impossible to find a single web site for each row or even a group of rows, which is why all of the sources are at the end of the table, because they contributed to different parts of the table. The images on the right do not correspond to the words on the left, and it is stated that that is so in the article. When I first started the table I thought that it would be incredibly boring, for someone who decided to read the whole article, to just have a long table. That is why I included the images to entertain the reader. Again, it would be almost impossible to find an image, to correspond with each species, in Wikimedia. Most of the articles in Taxonomy of the Bambuseae are stubs, almost none of them tell the reader anything about the species in the genus besides listing their names. Several of the articles are written in a confusing manner, and some of the articles contain information which is not factually correct. Species of Bamboo contains a sentance or two about every genus and almost every species in it. Some people who vote delete for this article might say that several of the species say "Unknown" in certain columns. That only means that it is unknown for that specific species on the web sites I have been using. After I have written down every species with the web sites I have been using, I will try to find other web sites for the unknown information. It is also possible that that information is unknown to human kind. If that is true they will remain "Unknown" for this article.Remilo (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good practical way to organise an article. In practice, a strict scientific classification isnt necessarily the most helpful way, and an alphabetic list like this has its place also.It wouldbe better to helpsource it than to delete it. DGG (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of bamboo species. Also get rid of the copy and paste paragraph in the lead. At WP:PLANTS we frequently use lists like this. Fully flushed out it could be on its way to a featured list candidate. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only paragraph that is currently copy-paste, was copied from this article and put in Bamboo the other copy-paste paragraph was rewritten. Remilo (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. Another suggestion upon further review would be the italicized comments before the table. I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. Reviewing the list will let any reader know that they're alphabetized, that some have English names while others have Chinese names, etc. And certainly the information about how to do a page search could be browser-specific and really isn't necessary. Just some thoughts. Excellent work collecting all of that information, though. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have edited them.Remilo (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I was able to fix the article's spacing some, but in the larger sense, topic has real world significance and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is being filled out, and it is uesful.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.