Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariocarpus lophophora


 * 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. As made up. I think that the sense of this discussion is that mention of a possible (mis)use of this term for criminal purposes could be made in the appropriate plant article if reliable sources for it can be found, and at that time a redirect might be appropriate.  Sandstein  14:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ariocarpus lophophora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to user Lithopsian there is no such species and the name is also not synonymous with Lophophora diffusa. I could not find any references for A. lophophora either. So it appears that this taxon was made up by the article's creator. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No such species. There are some online vendors selling "Ariocarpus lophophora", but it appears to me to be an intentional mislabelling/ruse by vendors in countries where peyote is (perhaps) legal to allow them to send them to countries where it is illegal. Photos provided by vendors are Lophophora species, not Ariocarpus. See Q&A for this Amazon item, this reddit thread and another reddit thread. edit: Actually this reddit thread really lays it out. Plantdrew (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Well in that case, since Plantdrew is apparently correct, this should be redirected to Lophophora with a note that it is an invalid name used by unscrupulous dealers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we source the redirect information to Reddit or Wikipedia user Plantdew? Or will unsourced be good enough? 2600:380:5677:D6F6:11D8:B20C:FD6A:912B (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha. Credit the Amazon vendor. The reddit threads I linked don't specifically mention this exact title. Reddit does mention Ariocarpus williamsii (which is an obscure, but sourceable scientific name for peyote) and Ariocarpus caespitosus (which seems to be another invention by online vendors). Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This name and the others are indeed attempts to circumvent rules prohibiting sale of Lophophora sp by some online marketplaces. I'm concerned that creating a redirect in Wikipedia for this term would somehow legitimise it.  At the very least the target article would need to explain why the redirect lands there, otherwise people may assume it is a valid synonym. Lithopsian (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and as I suggested. Of course our mentioning it also assists with law enforcement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Can anyone attribute the selling under a false name to a reliable source? I have been away from Wikipedia for a few years, and it seems we now source things to unspurced Wikipedia image captions, speculation, feelings, Reddit threads, Amazon descriptions, blogs (personal and anonymous), the supposed reputation of our own editors, and who knows what else, our psychics probably. Has policy changed so dramatically? Aren't we still writing an encyclopedia, not providing tools for the police and speculative articles because things might be real? 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, do not redirect. I am trusting previous comments and WP articles on the botanic points (no such thing as Ariocarpus lophophora, Ariocarpus are mainly innocuous, Lophophora are psychotrops and subject to regulations/illegal trade). Note that according to this UN report of 1970 some Ariocarpus may be psychoactive as well.
 * The real question is whether it is established that AL is an intentional misnaming of Lophophora to evade sanctions. While one could certainly establish intentional misnamings of smuggled drugs in general, I have not found anything serious online about this one in particular. Of course, one would expect to find shaky sources before official ones for that kind of issues, but Reddit/Amazon threads are still too thin to support a strong factual assertion (such as "Lophophora have been marketed under other names for smuggling purposes"). Tigraan (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reddit supports "Lophophora have been marketed under other names for smuggling purposes", but I'm not suggesting that Reddit (or Amazon) is a reliable source that can be included in Wikipedia. Even if it were a suitable source for Wikipedia, Reddit doesn't mention "Ariocarpus lophophora" specifically as one of the other names. Amazon does mention "Ariocarpus lophophora", but will that listing still be up in a few months time? Probably not. Redditors noted that some of the mislabelled items they'd ordered from previously have been taken down. It's likely that Amazon will take the item down at some point (it still includes the string "lophophora", which ought to raise a red flag). Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Plantdrew Do you mean reliable or unreliable? But if the only issue is transience, we can archive the page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. Left out a "not" there. I don't think Amazon/Reddit are reliable for our purposes. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense!
 * Delete, without prejudice to recreating when better sources arise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as factually incorrect and deliberately misleading.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2016 (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.