Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja 'Flower Power'


 * 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  23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Buddleja 'Flower Power'

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per User:Premeditated Chaos's PROD: "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 are not considered sufficient for this purpose. I found no WP:SIGCOV of this cultivar." which was contested by an IP User talk:73.170.77.46 because "no, you cant [sic] delete a whole bunch of articles without a discussion".

So here's your discussion. (Bundles incoming.) casualdejekyll  21:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Bundling articles because same PROD nominator, same PROD contester, same reasons.

casualdejekyll 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously, as the PROD-tagger. Thanks for saving me the time of creating the AfD nom, lol. The thing about the sources in this article and the other Buddleja articles is that they're mostly commercial entries or lists of nursery holdings (which aren't significant independent coverage), or entries in comprehensive lists/dictionaries/directories of cultivars (Hatch falls into this, for example, as it's simply a list of cultivars without in-depth content about each individual one). The only one which really ever has any content about any of them is Stuart's RHS Plant Collector Guide, and even that is generally scant paragraphs (under 100 words in most cases). So there really is very rarely enough sigcov to support an article. (For previous consensus discussions about cultivars, please see this discussion at WT:PLANTS, and the unanimously-deleted cultivar AfDs listed here.) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per well reasoned PROD. Star   Mississippi  01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per skillfully argued nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as these clearly aren't notable. Really they should have just been deleted through PRODs. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, blame the IP for randomly de-PROdding a small subset of the large number I've been PROD-tagging intermittently for weeks now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, Obviously fails notability as well described by nom. Alex-h (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per PROD rationale, the individual cultivars are not notable. AryKun (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (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.