Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandona


 * 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.  kur  ykh   00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Farandona

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently an elaborate hoax. No google hits (for those who rightly realise that ghits are not the be-all and end-all of sources, let it be known that botanical systematists really have their act together when it comes to online databases, and for them to all overlook an extant genus simply beggars belief). The editor's other contribution, Paraceratherium giganteum suffers from the same symptoms, suggesting an elaborate hoaxer. Hesperian 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. ShoesssS Talk 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of the existence of the genus/species/common name here, here, here, here or here. Melburnian (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - David Mabberley doesn't list this genus in The Plant-Book under either Farandona or Monimiaceae. It is therefore strongly likely to be spurious. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and evidence from Uncle G in the PROD2 on the article. Nothing in Google Scholar either. Author should be politely directed to Uncyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Colchicum (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Curtis Clark (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2008 (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.