Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja 'Flutterby' Lavender

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 keep. The consensus appears to be to keep the content. Whether that is as a stand alone article or merged into a list can be a discussion for another venue. At root (no pun) of the issue is basically does the article satisfy WP:GNG. The argument for keeping are of the WP:CRYSTAL variety, but they are convincing nontheless. I agree with Yunshui that this specific AFD falls into the WP:IAR here with respect to the notability guidelines. The consensus appears to lean keep but at the very least it is keep the content. v/r - T P 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Flutterby' Lavender

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell on the basis of the information in the article, this is a non-notable cultivar. Individual species are of course certainly notable, no matter how obscure, and lower ranks--even cultivars--of economic or scientific or cultural importance, but this one as stated in the article "has yet to appear in literature."

There are other similar articles, and depending on what the consensus is here, I may nominate them. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are at least a hundred documented Buddleja#Hybrids_and_cultivars, many of them with good pages with citations. It seems a reasonable function of an encyclopedia to describe well-known hybrids and cultivars. The implied desire to remove all hybrid and cultivar pages (?!) would be somewhat drastic in its effect - there must be many thousands of them, and there is certainly a large community of gardeners and horticulturalists who are interested in maintaining and reading them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page forms part of a set, aimed at providing the most comprehensive guide to the genus ever attempted. The cultivar has yet (March 2012) to appear in literature simply because it was only released a few months ago as part of the Flutterby™ series of STERILE buddleja. American in origin, production of many of the series has already been syndicated to European nurseries. The shrubs will no doubt soon become very popular, the inventor having eliminated virtually all the horticultural pitfalls of the genus (large size, sparse and straggly habit, prolific self-seeding, need for annual hard-pruning etc.). Ergo: the page(s) should become of interest to gardeners on either side of the pond. Ptelea (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually I'd vote delete on something as poorly sourced as this. However, the arguments above are valid - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it seems reasonable for an encyclopedia to describe all known cultivars of a species. Perhaps this is a good time to ignore the rules? Alternatively, the numerous articles on Flutterby cultivars could possibly be merged to form one larger article, Buddleja Flutterby cultivars or similar. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the idea of grouping under Flutterby cultivars could be worthwhile; there can still be redirects from each of the cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pteles' comment indicates 1/that it is not yet notable and 2/that the purpose is advertising. Note the use of the TM symbol. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 2, I believe Ptelea is just distinguishing that Flutterby is a trademark name rather than a cultivar name ( in this case 'Podaras#11' ). See "Selling names" at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) - a consensus has not yet been reached for the best way to represent trade designations for cultivars.--Melburnian (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Something only supported by a patent application does fail GNG. But I know Ptelea's work on cultivars of all kinds of plants, and that they're working towards a complete collection of Buddlejas. Which isn't actually a bad thing, IMO. If it's pretty much certain to end up in lit., and it's rather likely to be successful, why not wait a bit? Userfy the article until such time as something is published, and which point it should be acceptable back in article space. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep (or maybe merge to some list of Buddleja cultivars page, which we don't really have at present). This suggests it's been in USA Today (?) - alot of horticultural material has poor penetration onto the internet. and many journals are not accessible online. General Notability Guidelines work ok as once something has achieved any sort of penetration into the market there will be sourcing, but it might be hard to find....I should add that having brought plant articles which have cultivars to FA standard, finding sourced info on the cultivars can be damned hard...even when I know the name and maker and I'm staring at the plant and its label in my garden. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A detailed description from a jurisdiction outside the United States that deals with plant breeders' rights applications (like this) would help the notability cause but I haven't been able to locate one yet.--Melburnian (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As author of this article, and resident in the UK, I have no interest in advertizing a

cultivar only available in the USA. I have no connection whatsoever with either the plant breeder or the nursery which has obtained the propagation rights. What advertisement do you know of that does not mention the vendor? My sole purpose in writing the article, and about all the other cultivars of genus Buddleja, was to describe the plant and its history. And you regard this as advertizing? The Flutterby series are of considerable horticultural interest, since they are all sterile and thus permissable in regions where the species has been proscribed because its invasiveness. Ergo: the plants are of interest to the wider public also. As a newly released plant, references are inevitably few. However, the US patent cited comprises 4 pages, including photographs. What more do you want from a reference? Ptelea (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given Casliber's comment, I think I will go with a keep. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that his comment and Ptelea's amount to 1. it will be notable some day and 2. We have other equally weak articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's borderline at best. But a patent + non-trivial mention in USA Today + a catalogue entry gets it past the minimum threshold. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an appropriate list. Per WP:V#Notability, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG are cited here or in the article. Of course it may be desirable to cover all verifiable cultivars of certain commercially important species, but in view of the aforementioned policy, such coverage should consist of a list entry rather than a separate article. Sandstein 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Sandstein, notability has not been established during this discussion despite careful searching by all concerned, and a list would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue in the opinion that subspecific varieties of this sort are not notable as a matter of course. They are so only if scientifically or commercial important; the mere existence of the variety and the availability of the plants is not notability, any more than any routine commercial product. I agree with Sandstein that we should cover them--but as an entry on a list. There is no basis in policy for individual articles. The best degree of aggregation on the list I leave to the specialists. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.