Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum hlakungpuii


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bulbophyllum hlakungpuii

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a new species of orchid, said to have been discovered this year - in fact, the article seems to say that it was discovered less than a week ago, on March 25. Not surprisingly, neither of the on-line references mentions it, and the book referenced certainly does not, either, as it was published in 1990. The species is not mentioned in sites like orchidspecies.com or kew.org, and in fact I find no confirmation anywhere. The bulk of the article is general description of Bulbophyllum, plus advice about cultivating them copied from http://www.clanorchids.com/culture/bulbcult.htm, with the name of this species inserted. At best, this is a new name locally given (it is the same as the username of the article author), but we cannot keep this article without a reliable source for it as an official species name. PROD removed without comment by article author. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - as the article itself says, "The present species name Bulbophyllum hlakungpuii was given by Mapuia Hnamte in 2012." In other words, the name was not given by a scientist at Kew (for instance) but by a person in the village, and there are unsurprisingly no sources. Hlakungpui seems to name the people (or is it just the poets) of the area, not an individual. So this is not a hoax, but it is a mistaken idea both of binomial naming of plants and of WP notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - name is found in no sources; not a recognised species. -- 202.124.75.228 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A new species must be published in a reliable academic journal in order to be accepted as a species. No such publication can be found, and the article itself doesn't inspire confidence that this has been done. First Light (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best some sort of "local name" for an orchid, but I suspect this is actually a promotional construct or hoax.  This name does not appear in any reliable academic journal (or, for that matter, any unreliable academic journal), nor does the taxon's purported author.  No plant of this name is listed in the IPNI.  The "Hlakungpui Orchid Sanctuary" claimed as the discovery location does not appear to exist in any official capacity (and does not appear on the UN list of protected areas in Mizoram). None of the sources cited in the article support the claim to this taxon's existence in the slightest.  Much of the article's current content is a copyright violation.  And what little unique information is provided about this purported species is facially incorrect: given the size apparent in the picture, this is by no means "one of the smallest" Bulbophyllum (see here for an image of B. aschemon, for example). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (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.