- 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 snow keep. The issues were easily fixable and while the article does need more non-primary sources, sources like this (AuDB) and mention this (Cambridge University Press) establishes that it's quite influential and is still in use today. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Flora Antarctica (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)
Incompehensible Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – It says right in the article, "Plants collected by Hooker from Auckland and Campbell Islands are listed below". Seems rather easy to comprehend. Additional discussion is occurring on the article's talk page. North America1000 12:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I suspect that this was the first work on the subject. It will thus be a significant work in the history of botany. On the other hand, by providing long lists of species, it is horribly unreadable. Nevertheless, I can see the possibilities of an acceptable category, "flora first described in Flora Antartica". The number of red-links suggests that there is much work to be done! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this was a famous and pioneering expedition, and its record of the botany of the Antarctic is unquestionably notable. Whether the article ought to contain lists is a separate matter: they might be subsidiary articles. The Flora is as you'd expect mentioned in botany texts; Charles Darwin thanked J. D. Hooker for an early copy and wanted to discuss its evolutionary implications ... this is such an obvious keep I'm bemused by its nomination really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep. A book on one of the first scientific expeditions to Antarctica, written by one of the greatest biologists ever. I don't understand why this is nominated at all. If Dwergenpaartje is upset about the clearly inappropriate tag placed by a new page patroller they could just have removed it.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite comprehensible article. I think this was AfD'd in a fit of pique by the author. Perhaps because some editor who couldn't read English tagged it as "incomprehensible." First Light (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're now ready to SNOW KEEP this article, if anyone would like to close it for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 26 February 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.