Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database

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. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find significant independent coverage. Article's sources are affiliated. Reads like an advertisement. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. It certainly needs re-writing though. There are at least 76 references using this source in other articles, and it is a useful resource for plant names. As the article says, it is linked to, and hence to a degree recommended by, highly reputable online plant databases, such as GRIN, IPNI, etc. I don't have time to re-write it now, but it can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In many cases this is the most readily available source for translating plant names into multiple languages, and thus sees frequent recognition and use in other large databases and in sources all over the web. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is proper entry point to the database if I understand correctly. At the first glance, it looks to me as a useful and important specialized database, and it was quoted multiple times, exactly as Peter coxhead tells above. The page is poorly written and disorganized, however this is not a valid reason for deletion. Yes, it should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (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.