Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billbergia 'Albertii'
- 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. ✗plicit 13:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Billbergia 'Albertii'[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Billbergia 'Albertii' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For background to this bundled nomination, please see the previous bundles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster', which closed with a consensus to delete the first 10 of these cultivar stubs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Gunalda', which closed with a consensus to delete the next 50. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars for a discussion of the notability of cultivars, which was unanimous in affirming that cultivars must meet WP:GNG and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).
The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:
All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.
When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.
Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.
The following 20 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify WP:PLANTS.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.