Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'

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. Consensus is that a redirect would not be appropriate since this will not be mentioned at the target article per WT:PLANTS consensus. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017') Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'[edit]

[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 (such as the citation to Buddleja List 2011-2012 Longstock Park Nursery) are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

I found no significant independent coverage of this cultivar. The content at Trees and Shrubs Online is a scant few sentences, and the entry in Stuart is little more. Aside from that, all hits I found were trivial mentions or commercial listings. There is not enough here to substantiate a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddleja globosa the parent species. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:55, 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, ✗plicit 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should not be redirected. Anyone googling for Buddleja globosa Lemon Ball will automatically find the potential redirect target anyway, and if we do redirects for every non-notable variety of any ornamental plant we're going to have a truly enormous number of redirects with no useful value. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 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 for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 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.