Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A cultivar is a human-bred plant, either a version of a single species or a hybrid between two species, usually created to exhibit particular traits. Over a decade ago, several hundred articles about various cultivars for ornamental plants were created (see Category:Ornamental plant cultivars). The overwhelming majority are referenced solely to database entries and have gone untouched for since creation.

"Cultivar" is not a formal/scientific taxonomic rank, and cultivars can vary in rigorousness from long-term commercial products to passion projects for home hobbyists. As a result, unlike scientifically-described natural species, cultivars do not have any presumed notability on Wikipedia. Therefore, like any other subject, an individual cultivar should meet WP:GNG in order to merit inclusion. Consensus to this was recently reaffirmed with zero objections in a non-RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, with some posters specifically affirming that existing articles for non-notable cultivars ought to be reviewed and deleted if found wanting.

Over the past ten days or so, I have been tagging cultivars for PROD in small batches, working from User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 5. I posted about this at WT:PLANTS and received no objections to either my first post about Tillandsia hybrids or my second a few days later indicating that I would be carrying on with cultivars of other genera. Although the first few batches were deleted without contest, the remainder have now been mass-contested, forcing an AfD nomination. Rather than flood AfD with several hundred individual nominations across the next year or so, I am bundling ten here as a test case. If the consensus is to delete, I will nominate the rest in further batches.

All of these articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

A scant few, such as Tillandsia 'Peach', were cultivars of a single species, so I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

For transparency's sake, I intend to place a note at WT:PLANTS advising of this nomination, as obviously the participants there have a vested interest. I also intend to notify the de-PRODder.

Bundled in this nomination are the following:
 * Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'
 * Tillandsia 'Fireworks'
 * Tillandsia 'First Born'
 * Tillandsia 'Flaming Spire'
 * Tillandsia 'Folly'
 * Tillandsia 'Frolic'
 * Tillandsia 'Gardicta'
 * Tillandsia 'Glenorchy'
 * Tillandsia 'Gorgon'
 * Tillandsia 'Graceful'

If you've read this far, thank you for your time. I apologize for the lengthy rationale, but I believe it's important to give you the context for this nomination (and any others that may follow). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. None of these articles have any references beyond tiny webpages in a source that doesn't appear to rank as very much of a WP:RS - nor any content, really.  If there was actual content, then merging could be a possibility, but there isn't, so just delete instead.  A simple external link to this cultivar register website in the Tillandsia article would surely be sufficient, and I'm not sure it even deserves that.  (Disclaimer: Wasn't explicitly canvassed here, but saw this AFD as a result of a conversation in the Wikipedia Discord.)  SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify that I mentioned writing an unusually lengthy nomination statement on the Discord, but intentionally did not link the AfD nomination by name. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Bromeliad Society International is the official international cultivar registration authority for Tillandsia (and also other bromeliads). As such I think that WP:V/WP:RS would not be an issue for using it as a source for a list of Tillandsia cultivars. WP:NOT (a database) would however seem to apply, and I'd also have some concerns about compilation copyright, and as a practical matter any list article becoming dated. An external link at Tillandsia seems justifiable. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, only very selected cultivars are notable on their own, and that is only in the most extreme of cases...  Draco phyllum  08:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw this on Discord too. I also saw the huge number of prods when doing prod patrol.  I could say a lot more but that would just add to the pile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There is little to no scientific rigor behind what defines a cultivar, and therefore only a small number of these cultivars are actually notable on Wikipedia. I am in full favor for batch deletion of single-sentence articles on non notable ornamental cultivars. (JayPlaysStuff &#124; talk to me &#124; What I've been up to) 21:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Cultivars still need to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete from Wikipedia per above. Is this anything that might be worthwhile to transwiki to WikiSpecies? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2021 (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.