Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspidotis victoriana


 * 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 Result was delete. Topic appears to be a hoax according to consensus of discussion participants. -Pete (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Aspidotis victoriana

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I spoke too soon in my AFD for this editor's other major contribution. This article is almost certainly a hoax. However, it is ineligible for quicker deletion processes, having survived a proposed deletion in May 2009.

Nothing about this article appears to be accurate. I can find no reference to Aspidotis victoriana in any sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. The same applies to the purported common name of regal lacefern. When this article was subject to proposed deletion, Sir Landmass Weevil claimed that modern sources may be considering A. victoriana a junior synonym for A. californica. That doesn't seem to be true, either (although there are synonyms missing from that article as he suggested), but even if it were, it would not warrant an article under that name.

But most seriously, the photograph used to illustrate the article is not a picture of A. victoriana taken "near Cascade Gorge, Orgeon" in 2006. Sir Landmass Weevil is not the copyright holder, and the claimed licensing is invalid. In actually, it is a digitally manipulated version (flipped and stretched horizontally) of the thumbail of a photograph of A. californica taken by photographer Michael Charters in Eaton Canyon County Park in 2003. The image qualified for speedy deletion under F9 even if I've somehow managed to be wrong about the article content. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW - are you doing a Speedy Delete (copyvio) on the A. victoriana image? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagged now. Knew I forgot something important! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any information about this fern variety that's not a copy from Wikipedia either.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero result on google books!.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, the first Taxonomic HOAX I've seen. But it's not funny. Regal Fern, Osmunda regalis, is a large, rare and beautiful plant; Lace Fern, Microlepia strigosa, also a fine plant, so that's where the name is made up from. Wonderful work by Squeamish Ossifrage by the way, especially locating the source of the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I'm having trouble imagining why someone would make such a hoax... but given how the picture turns out to be a copyvio, it's not unlikely. However I recommend someone please check the cited sources in the genus page, Aspidotis. I can't access them, but it's possible that it really might be a case of a synonym. Outdated and invalid names are pretty common.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although none of this is really in question at this point, the references added to the genus page appear to be real references, they just don't support what they were added to support. Even without the hoaxing, our coverage of these ferns needs some work.  The irony here is that at least some sources really do recognize species we don't mention.  Just not the entirely fictional victoriana. I'll see what I can do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. On basis of evidence provided above above editors seems a feeble hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Speedy Delete: Confirmed hoax. Zero mention in Google Scholar. Single hit on Google Books is a compilation of Wikipedia articles. No Google Hits at all that aren't mirrors of Wikipedia. Except for this: []. The author of that blog entry is Maz Dixon, "an artist who reconstructs the landscape using the language of postcards and souvenirs." []. Yes, someone made a little funny ha-ha, and someone thought it would be funny to put it on Wikipedia. Tsk, tsk. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * mmm, and curiously, "Sir Landmass Weevil" is anagram of "Wireless SIM Vandal", and his user page says one of his "eventual goals" is "Inclusion of historical and deprecated botanical nomenclature into appropriate articles." Deprecated, eh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 18 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.