Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Plant Families

Plant Families
See: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.73.54.217 and Plant Families. Basically a user created LOTS of plant pages in the Main namespace, all stubs and most of them already covered in the Cookbook namespace. Initially my response was to move the pages within the book, but after a while the pointlessness surfaced, as most pages simply already exist (and rich in content) in the Cookbook list of ingredients. Therefor I'd like to propose this book, and all the descending pages scattered through the main namespace to be deleted. Also, fixing the links to point to the Cookbook namespace wouldn't be a bad idea either, I guess. Kander 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Macropedia material of ultra-stubs. We cannot do it better that Wikipedia so I think there's not point making such book. --Derbeth talk 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - A bad dump and inappropriate here. -Matt 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * transwiki to wikipedia if appropriate. I am unsure if wikipedia has subprojects that would include this, but if wikipedia won't accept, then delete. --Dragontamer 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most of the pages have only the section headings "Nutritive Headers", "Horticulture", "Recipes". I would not delete stubs (stubs should always be kept for later expansion or merging) but these are essentially blank pages. Making redirects into Cookbook probably is not necessary. --Kernigh 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd be surprised if wikispecies didn't have space for these pages. Cookbook works too, if it makes sense. In general, any pages that look like they conform to the wikipedia naming policy are probably dumped from wikipedia in the first place. if the material is forked, delete it here. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hey, I made this stubby monster. My idea, half-hatched as of yet. Is to connect what is covered by wikispecies (which covers botanical information) and the fruit and vegetable sections of the cookbook (which has recipes and whatnot) with a yet unpublished nutrition of plants wikibook, ie vitamin and mineral content, etc. Also note, this is not meant to be a book, but part of a wikiversity class using the books as texts. --whitenoise 12:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.54.217 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 January 2006  (UTC)
 * Note: the signature is User:whitenoise but the comment was posted by an IP. User:Lord Voldemort posted to User talk:Whitenoise at 11 January 2006, more than a month ago, about whether this was impersonation or only forgetting to login, but there was no response. --Kernigh 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep but add information to it, and change the name. I think it's a good idea, as this information cannot be found on wikipedia or wikispecies. Of corse, if it cannot be found within the book either(if no other information is added) then it should be deleted. It looks like a lot of effort went into creating the outline, and perhaps the author intends to fill in the information. I think it is inapropiately titled though, as it is not about plant families, but about foods, organized by family I assume(I am not a plant expert, so I wouldn't know). CatastrophicToad 23:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep I'm surprised that this is not on wikipedia. But then again I'm not because of the editing that happens there this is considered like a type of list. But if I go by what is being said here then I must agree... I see difficulty in where the original other is going with this.... I would keep for now. See what happens. Delete if nothing extensive happens to the article withing the next 2 weeks. --72.57.8.2I5 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:RESULT IS DELETE
 * Delete This is a nonbook with links to nonpages. Nothing's gained by keeping it, Jguk 21:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)