Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peacherine tree

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 merge to Peach#Cultivation. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacherine tree

Peacherine tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Proposed deletion removed. This is a copy of a 1908 advertisement: The Pacific monthly, Volume 21, p. PA552-IA22, at Google Books. The word "peacherine" doesn't appear to be in general use.

(The above "find sources" links don't really work. Try these instead: news books scholar) Melchoir (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyvio and not really a notable term. JIP | Talk 06:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It can't be a copyvio of a book which is out of copyright... but WP shouldn't contain pure verbatim copies of advertisements, however old. (Of course it could cite and quote such things.) Google shows the term does exist, so the article could be rescued. I'll have a quick look for decent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep (or Redirect-with-Merge as new section) - I've done a 'rescue' on this article - a complete rewrite with new sources and a historic quotation. The tree continues to be available on catalogues in Australia and New Zealand, even if it's now rare in the USA where it originated. Hope you now like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, and I love rescuing articles, but I'm not convinced on this one. Are those sources even talking about the same thing? I suspect they're just describing unrelated cultivars with similar marketing. The article needs a reliable secondary source to connect the dots. Melchoir (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you. From the sources (and similar ones if anyone needs more) it is clear that a fruit tree hybrid very similar to the 1909 cross is still in existence, along with the name, and the descriptions certainly match up. Unless there are preserved specimens from 1909, however, we'll probably never know exactly what the original hybrid was - but then, that's the same position with dozens of fruit varieties today. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's current description is: red, large, tastes good, and flesh may be yellow or white. There could be thousands of cultivars that fit that description. Anyway, the Pacific Monthly source doesn't mention color or size. I really think the article is a case of original research. Melchoir (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not fair, the description is Peach x Plum hybrid (with one site proposing Peach x Apricot, seems like a mistake) with a simple description of the fruit. Of course we can quote more descriptive text if that is what is needed. I've done no OR, everything is by finding, quoting, citing and summarizing sources, which is what we are supposed to do, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, plums? They're not mentioned in the article or the sources...

The OR is simply in drawing the conclusion that the sources are talking about the same plant. Melchoir (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not minded to argue as I feel that Marjaliisa is probably right, this material should be a new section of Peach, so I'd be happy to go for a Merge, really. But since you ask, how does one ever know that when a word is used, it refers to one thing and not another? W.V.O. Quine posed the problem in philosophy, and it has no easy answer. As far as not-quite-ordinary-looking peach-like (or maybe peach variety) trees go, however, if nurserymen call them Peacherines and we can cite them on that, we have to believe them, that's what we do on Wikipedia. Your philosophical servant, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not such a hard problem for Wikipedia: that's where secondary sources come in. If there were a book that said "The peacherine was developed in 1909 and remains popular in Australia a hundred years later", then that would be the end of it. Melchoir (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It says in the article on Peaches that a Nectarine is a kind of Peach, so the Peacherine can't be a Peach/Nectarine hybrid. Maybe merge this with Peach? The Edible Garden ref seems to indicate that a Peach/Apricot hybrid is called a 'Peachcot'. --Marjaliisa (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be appropriate, a new section there; but perhaps we shouldn't assume it is a kind of peach without direct evidence. That can't be right. A Nectarine is a Peach x Plum hybrid, not a type of peach as such. So I think Peacherine is effectively a back-cross, we can hunt for evidence if that is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to a new section of Peach. I really appreciate the work that Chiswick Chap has done, and find the whole subject interesting. However, at this point, all four of the sources in the article are promotional advertisements selling something marketed as a "Peacherine". One is a 1909 magazine ad and three are contemporary plant sales websites. None are reliable, independent sources needed to establish notability for a freestanding article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can live with that, but I think the sources are sufficient to demonstrate existence of the variety for a new Section of Peach, so I'm suggesting a Merge as well as Redirect (I've struck my 'Keep' above). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2011 (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.