Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnauba Palm

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carnauba Palm

VfD added to article by User:Happyfeet10 on May 8, but never listed on VfD. (I'm just completing the listing and abstaining from vote) Brighterorange 19:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changed- Speedy delete no substance. Scimitar 20:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that there is substance. A very nice stub. Scimitar 14:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy no info Xcali 20:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No real information of substance other than that it's a type of palm tree (the name already implies it.) --Hoovernj 22:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain extant artice is not encyclopedic, how ever the Carnauba Palm is a notable type of palm tree. Klonimus 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No real content, if someone wants to make a real article about the Carnauba, go ahead and do it, it won't be a recreation. Sjakkalle 06:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've put a stub there, but I failed biology and plants scare me, so I don't really understand the source material - however, it mentions the Latin name, alternate name, country of origin and the thing it's probably most notable for now. Vashti 09:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this article. Wiwaxia 12:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xezbeth has done further work on it and it looks like quite a nice little stub now. Vashti 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good stub, although not as amusing as it was when it was nominated for VfD ("A type of palm tree that has not yet been defined on this site."). Quale 14:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is now a good stub. --Un focused 03:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good stub. JamesBurns 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but needs a lot of work JoJan 18:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a good stub now. Paul August ☎ 03:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.