Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/ABC model of flower development

ABC model of flower development
I fail to see how the lone quote on this quite narrow subject rises to the level of being pithy or memorable in any way. Instead it reads more like a passage from a dry textbook - which I do not believe is the aim here. — UDScott (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe this goes too far. Obscure fragment of text on an obscure topic. See Quotability: "Quotes on a less notable subject may still merit inclusion, but they must be shown to have a stronger case for inclusion based on factors such as the notability of the speaker and the quality of the quote itself". BD2412 T 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete . I agree that the quote is moderately obscure and is not particularly pithy or memorable – Goethe is noted for a number of much more eloquent and famous writings. I disagree that the quote is even obscurely about the subject as defined – Goethe's observations on plant morphology do not refer in any way to a specific genetic model formulated 200 years later. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Morphogenesis per remarks below about "ABC model of..." being a topic too narrowly defined for a Wikiquote theme article. (And redirect from Morphology for now – it may later become a disambiguation page.) Otherwise delete it as an inappropriate topic for a general theme article. Selections should also be trimmed for quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep —Although I am not remotely familiar with this topic, the Goethe quote seems to be important enough to the topic that it is included in the topic's introductory section on Wikipedia. Given this, I have to suspect that there may be some meaningful historical significance relating this quote to the topic, and if that is actually the case, then the dryness of the quote would definitely be a non-factor.  Suffice it to say, I don't have a de jure problem with specialised topics, and since I am not familiar enough with botany to say how obscure or non-obscure this topic is within that field, I do not feel comfortable providing my assent to the pro-deletion camp on the obscurity grounds.  (It does appear, though, at least pertinent enough to botany that a link to the topic is included in Wikipedia's Botany template.)  That said, the Wikipedia article says, "The ABC model of flower development was first formulated by George Haughn and Chris Somerville in 1988."  It would seem, therefore, that a definite improvement can be made to this article through inclusion of one or more related quotes from one of those two writers.  (While Y-S.Ko has uploaded a number of quotes to the page since the addition of this deletion notice (the Enrico Coen quotes seeming to be the most quotable among them), she or he has unfortunately not (at least hitherto) uploaded any quotes from either George Haughn or Chris Somerville.)  Lastly, if the Goethe quote does entail a certain historical significance, and if the verdict is nevertheless to delete this article, I would encourage the creation of a page for botany (a clearly non-obscure topic) with the Goethe quote transferred there.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)  Edited (with all changes in red),  allixpeeke  ( talk ) 06:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - (1) I added more quotes to the article. (2) That Goethe quote is quoted in Wikipedia article. I think the Goethe quote is important because of its scientific and historical value. If you cannot trust Wikipedia, please see the Enrico Coen quote on Goethe and ABC model. Ningauble wrote he disagree that Goethe is even obscurely about the subject. If this is not about the subject, Why is it included in Wikipedia artice? Why did Enrico Coen, an expert in flower structure, write those things? (3) BD2412 wrote "Obscure fragment of text on an obscure topic." However, this is notable concept. If this is not notable, the Wikipedia article does not exist. ABC model can be seen in many university textbooks, not only those focused on developmental biology, but also to first year general biology textbooks, cell biology texts and those focused on genetics. For example, "The influence of organ-identity genes on the development of the Arabidopsis flower can best be understood by viewing the floral meristem as three overlapping developmental fields or fields of gene activity; designated A, B, and C. Field A includes the sepals and petals (whorls 1 and 2), field B includes the petals and stamens (whorls 2 and 3), and field C includes the stamens and central carpels (whorls 3 and 4). This view is referred to as the ABC model for floral organ specification, in which a particular gene or pair of genes is associated with each developmental field, but controls the identity of two adjacent whorls of organs" (Introduction to plant physiology (4th ed., 2009) by William G. Hopkins and Norman P. A. Huner) "Studies of plant mutations reveal that three classes of organ identity genes are responsible for the spatial pattern of floral parts. These genes, designated A, B, and C, regulate expression of other genes responsible for development of sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels. Sepals develop from the meristematic region where only A genes are active. Petals develop where both A and B genes are expressed. Stamens arise where B and C genes are active. Carpels arise where only C genes are expressed." (Campbell Biology (10th ed., 2014) by Jane B. Reece et al.) Moreover, ABC model is known for its simplicity and elegance. There are statements about that. "a simple and elegant model that explained the major aspects of genetic interaction among the loci" (Elena M. Kramer), "the truly elegant theory of floral genesis ... this elegantly simple model" (Steven Jay Gould) (4) C. P. Snow once remarked, "A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?", I want everyone to be more generous about inputting the scientific concept in physics, chemistry, biology, and so on. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be to merge this content into a broader page on flower development. I presume that if there is an "ABC model of..." then there must be other models with quote about them. BD2412 T 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Above, I changed my vote from Comment to Keep, but should the Keep party fail to garner requisite support, I would support, as an alternative, moving some of these quotes to a broader page, whether that page be plant reproductive morphology, the broader plant morphology, or the still broader botony. allixpeeke (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Many seem to agree that the theme is too narrow. I didn't think so. But now, I am not sure about that. Maybe I was wrong. Moving to some wider topic is maybe appropriate. (2) Is the comment at 21:23, 9 October 2015 aggressive? English is not my mother tongue. I can make a mistake. But, I did not intend to insult someone. I am sorry about inappropriate words to the person who feel insulted. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep — though I agree the category has narrow appeal and a slightly more broad category of "flower development" or "plant morphology" might be appropriate. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) + tweak
 * Keep Now the article seems to be well grown with cited quotes. I concur with Kalki though on the lemma itself. The current one is less appealing. I support to move it to "plant morphology" or "botony". --Aphaia (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments re. several points offered offered by Y-S.Ko:
 * To say Goethe's quote (originally the only quote in the article) is about the ABC model is a bit like saying Galileo's concept of relative motion in 1632 was about Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. Galileo had no inkling of the invariant speed of light and Goethe, with his "influx of cruder saps", had no inkling of genetics. To the extent that the earlier and later thinkers were writing about the same subjects, they are broader subjects than the particular theories or models they put forward.
 * The ABC model is indeed notable, but I agree with others here that it is a very narrow topic: a particular model for the interplay of particular genes in the morphogenesis of particular organs particular to plants. It is a "good example" (Coen's words) and illustrative case in point for studying morphogenic processes. Several other fine cases come to mind that might be included in a broader Wikiquote theme article. In addition to the problem that fragmentation of overly narrow topics makes it hard for readers to see the forest for the trees, narrowly defined topics also tend to foster including less quoteworthy material. (E.g., the remark by Bowman, et al. – saying something is remarkably good is not necessarily, by that virtue, a remarkable quote.)
 * You do not need to lecture me about C. P. Snow 's The Two Cultures. I am no stranger to science and the history of science: such was my training and education before ultimately pursuing a technical career. I firmly believe that bridging Snow's "gulf of mutual incomprehension" between the sciences and the humanities remains one of the central challenges of our time. My objections here have nothing to do with excluding scientific concepts from Wikiquote. Rather, Wikiquote might better serve to build the bridge with more thoughtful consideration of the manner in which quotations relating to scientific concepts are selected and arranged. If the ABC model is a perfectly lovely tree, does this article structure help the non-technical reader see the forest?
 * I am changing my !vote above, and now recommend broadening the article topic to actually encompass subjects currently covered in the article and to allow for article expansion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per BD2412.