Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diospyros ebonasea


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Diospyros ebonasea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No botanical databases have any record of Diospyros ebonasea. This species name doesn't not exist. Several woodworking sites do have articles on "Malaysian blackwood"; at least one notes that the scientific name given is unconfirmed. I'm not sure that Malaysian blackwood is notable subject given that there is very little reliable information about it (such as the species it comes from). However, the title "Diospyros ebonasea" should not exist. Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not in the ITIS, not in Wikispecies, not in the i-Tree database, not in the AVH. All mention of it I can find either has no date or is dated after the article was added by Boy888 in 2012, which I speculate was a deliberate hoax. Also, Comment: If this article is deleted, mention of the alleged species in the Wiktionary entry for 'blackwood' (added in 2013) should be subsequently removed. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per below, I retract my speculation of a deliberate hoax, but per, a guitar catalogue is not taxonomic literature; the article and corresponding mention in the Wiktionary should still be removed.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete complete absence of any verifiable trace of the species, so I would assume it was a hoax entry. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No information. This is likely a hoax. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly not a hoax: . Routinely mentioned in luthery sites. I suggest: DE "is an unconfirmed botanical name commonly associated to Malaysian blackwood ...". 188.216.192.146 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted, all these mentions seem to postdate the creation of the Wikipedia article, which suggests that the name originated here (possilikely as a hoax) and then spread over the net. It happens; see e.g. Articles for deletion/Prithvilus willardi. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seem? Based on what? The article is from 2012. This book from 2008 cites DE. 2.34.244.101 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Yup, that's earlier. But in any case, when it comes to species names, it's the scientific literature and not guitar catalogues that are the reliable sources; and there's no mention in the former. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a guitar book is may not be a reliable source for biology but this does appear to be a reliable source for guitars. This is a guitar article not a biology article and the article can be edited to make that abundantly clear. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Malaysian blackwood and clarify that Diospyros ebonasea is not a bona fide species. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yup, ideally with a redirect from DE. By the way, the genus Diospyros belongs to the Ebenaceae family, which suggests how the snafu came about. Still, the usage is now common. 188.216.192.3 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be an item of misinformation that has circulated amongst guitar makers. Whilst they may have expertise in that field, I do not credit them for expertise in botany.  There is no indication that I can find that the authors of the guitar-making books and suchlike pointed to are also qualified in botany.  So, after looking for anything confirming this and finding nothing beyond inexpert sources, I agree with the other editors here that there is no support for any such species.  It is certainly not in  which is at least the quality of source that is needed here. The problem is that Malaysian blackwood isn't right, either. "Blackwood" is a slang name so abused that it really does not identify a wood accurately.  The actual common name will be something like (to pick an example of how Wikipedia is not getting this right at all) balau (an article that we do not have, despite the colour), listed by the Malaysian Timber Council, a trade federation that cites its scientific sources, at ; or, as seems the likliest candidate to me, Kayu Malam (kayu malam) which is what the MTC lists  as the common name for ebonies in the genus Diospyros family Ebenaceae as claimed based upon unreliable sourcing to be "Malaysian blackwood" here. The people selling this stuff seem to know the science, or at least can point to it, and the names.  The people buying it seem not to know their onions, or indeed woods. Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no trace of actual scientific proof this is a real plant, so this article clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia or any Wiktionary. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2019 (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.