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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rhododendron species (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 "article" is simply a list of red links. Per WP:REDLINK, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Senator2029 • talk 12:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per explanations of WP:REDLINK below. move to an appropriate WikiProject or User space' per WP:REDLINK, until more than 50% or so of the articles are written. (Although I personally disagree with redlink on the list issue, it's clear on this point.) --Lquilter (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per WP:REDLINK. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to a WikiProject or user space as "lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes" per WP:LISTPURP. KTC (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That means lists that have no encyclopedic purpose once those articles are created (i.e., to do lists), not lists that should be in the encyclopedia as part of the coverage of notable topics. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satsfies WP:LISTPURP both as a navigational index (not all links are red; there are articles on many species in this genus already) and as a "valuable information source" relevant to the genus Rhododendron by listing all species within that genus regardless of whether articles on all those species have or will soon be created.

  This also passes WP:REDLINK, which says redlinks are appropriate where the topics "should obviously have articles;" the point about not creating lists of redlinks before creating articles is for lists that have no inherent encyclopedic function aside from being a to do list for more articles. That isn't the case here. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postdlf. I personally don't have a problem with redlink lists. But, WP:REDLINK says: "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." How to reconcile? --Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and most importantly, I already explained why this list is not merely an "article creation guide", because this list should exist regardless of the separate articles for each species; second, it says "encouraged", which is far from saying "do it in this order or else we'll delete the list"; third, I can't honestly say compliance with REDLINK is high on my list of concerns in building the encyclopedia, nor should it be on yours. There's something wrong if guideline language tells us to delete a list of species within a genus just because most of those species don't have articles yet even though the list is encyclopedic in and of itself, all species listed should have articles, many do, and even more do now since this AFD opened and the list has been seen by more eyes. I am trying to interpret REDLINK in a manner that makes sense, a manner that is consistent with LISTPURP (and actual consensus in this area) and is constructive. If that can't be done, then REDLINK gets the red pen and unhelpful passages will be removed. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter, this list isn't being used "as an article creation guide." A comprehensive list of Rhododendron species is inherently notable and useful for an encyclopedia. First Light (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I mean, I think that it is being used as an article creation guide, but that's not its sole purpose -- so if the article should also exist ... I think I'll wander over to WP:REDLINK and insert a "solely" and see what happens. (-: --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good change. Thanks. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. WP:REDLINK currently contradicts itself, because it later says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions....," which is essentially encouraging the use of redlinks as a guide to new article creation. So adding "solely" would help to make it more clear. Thanks, First Light (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Postdlf. Also, note, the quoted policy supposedly supporting this AFD does not apply to this list, all of these species are notable by Wikiepdia policy. Maybe something else in REDLIST is supposed to apply here? -Fjozk (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per WP:REDLINK and then redirect to Category:Rhododendron, which alreayd duplicates the blue links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as with the other lists, eg those in List of the largest genera of flowering plants, all links will be blue soon enough. —Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This does not contravene WP:REDLINK, and even if it did, there's a policy about doing the right thing regardless of the rules. (Generally accepted plant species are treated as inherently notable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An "upgrade" to classification of the genus Rhododendron would not be amiss. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list is spun off from the genus article and could be expected to be gradually populated. I don't know why Rhododedron has been neglected thus far but the red links are not a problem in this case. Indeed it is useful as a reference point for ensuring that the articles do get written. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid species are inherently notable; these redlinks will eventually be blued. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is not indiscriminate, has a defined scope, and serves as a navigation aid. It's true that most of the links are red links, but as per guidelines, red links are allowed when they link to pages that should have articles and are encyclopedic.--xanchester (t) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very helpful list, just as it is. Any genus with that many species should have a list article. There is also room for improvement, kind of like every other article on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:REDLINK is not applicable here. Berton (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly too many to include in the Rhododendron article. I would take the same line as with a stub article, or one inadequately referenced. Yes, it would be helpful to have an article about each of the species listed, but as pointed out the list is useful in itself and the red and blue links both serve a purpose for users in indicating whether WP contains more on the species in question. No doubt each will have an article in due course, but I would rather that editors took their time writing those articles to a good standard. To insist that the list should not exist until each and every species is fully covered would be very unhelpful to users, as would having a partial list with a note saying that the list is incomplete without indicating what is missing. --AJHingston (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Would the encyclopedia be improved by deleting a well-defined list of notable entities together with the associated red links that encourage article creation? No.--Melburnian (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Each of the redlinks are unquestionably notable subjects. This list could be transferred to the genus article, Rhododendron, but that would overwhelm the article, which is why it's a separate page in the first place. You could remove all the redlinks and list only the blue ones, but that is both misleading (gives the impression that there are fewer species under the genus than there really are) and removes valuable information (a list of all accepted taxa is not trivial information). The list is finite, with a definite scope, and it is undeniably encyclopedic (WP:Source list).

That's the main error in the deletion rationale. The assumption that this is an "article creation guide" simply because it has more red links than blue ones. Ask yourself, if you remove the [[ and ]] from the red links, will the list still give valuable information? Yes. That's why this is not an "article creation guide" and that's why WP:REDLINK and the caveat in WP:PURPLIST regarding "article creation guides" are irrelevant.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whilst in some cases a large number of red links would indicate a lack of proper function, this is not so here. Furthermore recent changes have made the page more functional.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously important Genus, many sub-articles. Delete argument seems to be not a "delete" argument, but a argument about how best to format the many species entries that do not yet have separate articles. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into sub-genera as per WP:COMMONNAME. When the article says Hymenanthes, with approximately 225 species, and subgenus Rhododendron, with approx. 400 species, comprise what gardeners typically describe as "Rhododendrons." Two subgenera are generally known to gardeners as "Azaleas", and include many fewer true species: Pentanthera, which comprises the deciduous azaleas, and Tsutsusi, which includes evergreen azaleas it's talking about common names in exactly the WP:COMMONNAME sense. Thus List_of_Rhododendron_species, List_of_Azalea_species, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except Rhododendron is about the genus as a whole. Bottom line though, this proposal is outside the scope of this AFD and should be addressed through normal talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article is correct in saying that Rhododendron normally refers to the subgenus, then some rename is in store for us, as per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure what you mean by 'out of scope' for the AfD, with a consensus we can do almost anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • EC The article is a list of species of the genus, so it should not say that it is about the subgenus. I will change it. In the common English, Rhododendron can refer to the subgenus; this is just one more reason for not using common names. The proposal is outside the scope of this discussion. However, if you want to either change this article in this manner, or create new lists by horticulture group, feel free to propose on the list talk page and create the articles. -Fjozk (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 3xEC Both the main article and the list cover the genus as a whole (not the subgenus), and should be kept that way in my opinion. Stuartyeates, you do raise a good point, but I think the best way to handle that is a sortable list, much like is done at List of Nepenthes species, with subgenera being one of the columns in the list. I think that would provide the most utility and use for readers interested in the genus Rhododendron. First Light (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. This is a typical Lumpers and splitters discussion that is so common in genus/species issues, so the idea of splitting is valid - just not the best one in this case, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2012 (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.