Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris persica

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: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, early close on advice of WP:SNOW. The article when nominated was in a poor state but the subject is notable; it just needed clean up and attention. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iris persica

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

Article is too short to give any significant view to the topic. Reference is too weak as well. WP: Notability all over again The Wikimon (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is inherently notable as a species of plant. Also, being short is not a reason to delete as articles can be expanded over time. More references can be added as well, although I don't see what is weak about a link to Project Gutenberg . Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - every species has a proper citation available, namely the original description published by the describing scientist, so notability is never a concern. Iris persica was described by Linnaeus. Ahem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It does exist [1][2] and plant species are generally considered notable like animal species. WP:WikiProject Plants aim to document all known species, if anyone would like to contribute. Funny ^Pika! 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this little charmer hadn't had its praises sung by Vita Sackville-West,[3] Gertrude Jekyll,[4] William Robinson,[5] and over 2,000 other writers,[6] including Linnaeus, it would still be notable, since all named and accepted plant species are inherently notable. First Light (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quickly. Notable by virtue of being a species. Ducknish (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Speedy (WP:SNOW) Keep to close, now that things are clear. I've added image, taxobox, description and cultivation sections with a quote and several references, not that they were needed, but it makes a nice historical article for an attractive species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2013 (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.