Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'

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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

The Stuart entry is no more than a few sentences. I found no coverage of this plant that meets all 3 of criteria of being significant independent and reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem a sensible compromise to expand the 'cultivar' section on the buddleja globosa page to include a sentence or two on this and other cultivars, using the information available from reliable sources. Buddlejagarden (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the article having information about its cultivars in general, but my concern with upmerging every non-notable cultivar is the difficulty of establishing an objective criteria for what should be included or not. As there are hundreds of Buddleja cultivars, if we don't have some kind of strict criteria, the article risks becoming overloaded with information about non-notable subtopics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddleja globosa the parent species. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a redirect seems unnecessary since a search for the specific cultivar would give the target article anyway. AryKun (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Buddleja globosa per the consensus discussion at WP:PLANTS mentioned in the OP. This would make good content as a subsection. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford, the consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics (and inviting the placement of more). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I will update my votes if that is indeed the case -- do you have a link to the WP:PLANTS discussion? I wasn't able to find it.Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#cultivars. Sorry, I thought I'd linked it in the AfD post. (And see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#Cultivars_2:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tillandsia_'Feather_Duster' for a list of previous bundled cultivar AfDs, which were unanimously closed as delete). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I found the clearest consensus. Change vote to delete based on the number of cultivars in question. Might I suggest that maybe the parent article should at least have a plain list of all the cultivars even if there are hundreds, but nothing more expansive? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a terrible idea and was soundly rejected as an option in that WT:PLANTS discussion. I'm not sure you have a solid understanding of the amount of scientific rigor applied to cultivars and their naming - it's none. Cultivars can be anything from long-term commercial products to something some hobbyist bred in their backyard one day for funsies and slapped a name on. Listing potentially dozens of non-notable entries at each parent species article gives them WP:UNDUE prominence and takes the focus off the encyclopedic content that actually serves readers. What does the audience learn about the plant species from a plain list of cultivar names? Nothing, except that some of them are silly.

(Side note - I put a strike through your original merge vote so it's more clear for the closer that you changed to delete). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2021 (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.