Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juncus effusus 'Spiralis' (2nd nomination)

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. This seems particularly appropriate given the expansion of the article with sources since it was nominated for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juncus effusus 'Spiralis'[edit]

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

Contains no information not on parent page Juncus effusus - only a horticultural forma, not a separate taxa Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be expanded, but it is a very notable and widespread cultivar that has been classified previously as a form (which is a taxon) and a variety (also a taxon). Besides, notable horticultural cultivars are certainly worthy of having their own articles. Instead of putting effort into nominating for deletion, search through google scholar to expand the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable cultivar as can be seen from investigation of the "Find sources" links above. For example, it is covered in detail in this Missouri Botanical Garden article Unusually for a cultivar, it even has its own common name - "corkscrew rush". As Rkitko mentions above, it needs expansion, not deletion. Melburnian (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this article duplicates the material on Juncus effusus f. spiralis in the parent article, which makes this article pointless. There is no indication that the cultivar is notable enough to have its own article. Previous debate on WP:WikiProject Plants a few years ago suggested that most cultivars are not notable enough for an article, and most cultivars do not in fact have articles (see, for example List of Grevillea cultivars). The appropriate action is to expand Juncus effusus#Cultivation and recreate this article in the unlikely event that that section gets too big. -- 202.124.75.202 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recent changes to the article now suggest that this cultivar is notable. -- 202.124.73.168 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've expanded the article and added references. Melburnian (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know little about botany and taxa-related notability, but this article now satisfies GNG. I was under the impression this is a non-notable cultivar, but it appears to be a notable one with enough information for a stand-alone article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note recent consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Revision_of_Project.27s_Scope_and_Goals that hybrids and cultivars should have articles if notable. As per Melburnian and others, this one is notable. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:29, 18 July 2011 (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.