Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Conifers

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. Based upon improvements made during the discussion. Note that being created by an SPA is not in itself a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Conifers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This page appears to exist for promotion and advertising, and is for a non-notable book. R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a review of the book in an independent reliable source here, but I don't think that's enough on its own to get this over the notability bar. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found no indication this meets WP:NBOOK. Article has no independent RS. Created by SPA who has only edited this article and added promotional links to the books website in various other articles. MB 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability independent of the book itself or independent of online stores, with no assertion for future improvement. —Mythdon 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I must note that the two opinions above are factually incorrect, because the article links to a review of this book in The Gardening Times, which appears to be an independent reliable source, and some other reviews in more debatable sources. And the review that I linked above is certainly in an independent reliable source, being in an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the user at IP 86.17.222.157 (that's a first for me!). This is a book (actually two volumes) published by a learned society that has been reviewed by at least four reliable periodicals. Even if there were a COI, or editing is needed, those are not fatal flaws. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reviews in the Arboricultural Journal and The Gardening Times push this over the notability bar. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Keep as per IP 86.17.222.157 however rewrite the Concept section to meet some criteria like WP:NONSENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I cleaned up the article a bit, and I believe that The Gardening Times review is sufficient to give this page a pass. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2016 (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.