Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fubumquat


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fubumquat
I can find no references either for the fruit or for the tree. If it exists, it must be original research, and hence ineligible for wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  The author claims that there exists evidence to back the claim - but there's nothing about it online! Even about the fumber tree - there's no scientific data whatsoever to support this article. Delete, until the author finds something to verify this. –-  kungming·  2  | (Talk ·Contact) 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V ( and there were some date changes in the history which add to the feeling it is a hoax). Yomangani talk 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this tree sounds an awful lot like a kumquat, and accordingly sounds a lot like something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, obvious hoax, author's only contrib(s). Zero Google hits for fubumquat, limebumquat, etc. I'm going to keep an eye on this user. --MCB 06:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, most probably a hoax, the genus comes from SE Asia, why should this one originate in Mali? DAHordle 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the above.  Unless the author can provide some evidence of it, this is at best unverifiable, but most likely a Hoax. ---  The Bethling (Talk) 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:13 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Ludvig 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; obvious hoax. Mentioned in Ivorian "folk tales dating to the 5th century", in spite of Ivorian history only being traceable back to the 1460s.  ergot 16:02, 25 September 2006 (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.