Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiabacca Wood


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Kiabacca Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The existence of this wood is not supported by reputable sources. The LEAP link doesn't mention it, but talks about mahogany instead, for which we already have an article. This link mentions it but says it is the same thing as amboyna, or Pterocarpus burl. Perhaps this article should redirect to one of those, or perhaps it is just a little anecdote that does not belong in Wikipedia at all. Either way, I don't believe that what is on this page deserves its own article. ubiquity (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Apparently a non-notable common name for a type of wood, possibly Amboyna. this is the only remotely useful source that I could find. Fails WP:GNG.- MrX 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I work with the Kiabacca team, and our head Chef who use to work as a Pizza Chef in St. Croix swears that Kiabacca wood exists. He cites this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejapage (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pterocarpus. The Ed Jaffe blog post cited by Thejapage is clearly not a reliable source, and, like the 1872 book, is only the barest of mentions. But it does appear there's some use of this in trade (again), so there's probably no harm in adding it to the already-impressive list of synonyms in the Pterocarpus article (citing the 19th century source), and redirecting this there. I'd have no objections to deleting the current content first; this promotional copy isn't necessary to preserve. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How you can redirect to an article without reliable source linking the two names? The 19th century source does not say it is Pterocarpus. It says it's is 'amboyna'. And what was called 'amboyna' in 19th century? Also, how you see Pterocarpus' leaves " closely resemble those of the Cannabis plant"? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the 1872 book source seems pretty straightforward about the kiabacca = amboyna relationship, and "amboyna" has always referred to a certain form of Pterocarpus wood. As for the content of the current article? Frankly, I'm ignoring it; I'm certainly not advocating to merge this anywhere! Really, though, if this is simply deleted, I won't cry over it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well back, the key here is "form of wood", in this case burl. But our article speaks about leaves of kiabacca "which resemble cannabis", so what the heck is this (besides authors smoking pot too much)? Also, we don't link to articles which do not discuss the redirected term Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * delete. Insufficient reliable references. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Use of sources that make no references to the item make the article suspect. No demonstration that it is of encyclopedic interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for want of actual sources. Neutralitytalk 06:27, 15 February 2015 (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.