Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red aloe vera

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red aloe vera

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

Ok this is a bit of a weird situation. The user who created this page has attempted in the past to create a page entitled Red Aloe (Mis-belief), primarily about what exists in this article in the "assertions of medicinal properties section." It was speedy deleted twice (there might have also been an AFD but I can't remember), iirc, because red aloe vera already has an article at aloe ferox.

This page appears to be a WP:COATRACK that implies a difference between the plant Red Aloe and some non-notable, possibly non existent semisynthetic variation, all for the sake of including the information about the misconception regarding the actual A.ferox's medicinal properties.

The sources used do not appear to be speaking of this semisynthetic derivative as searching for the article name and "red aloe" does not return meaningful results, and nor am I able to find differentia in scientific literature between these concepts.

I'm submitting this article for deletion, and also seeking input as to whether this user should be cautioned about recreating this article content for the 3rd (or 4th) time outside of Aloe ferox (not implying that it belongs there as it seems to be an OR statement anyway). N^oformation ^Talk 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I did remember wrong. There was an afd on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Aloe (Mis-belief) - though I swear there was another article speedied under a different name. So this was probably eligible for a speedy again but since the AFD is already listed I'm not sure where to go from here wrt withdrawing and speedying or letting it run. I have no problem with either method if anyone wants to be bold. N^oformation ^Talk 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you thinking of Aloe Rubra, perhaps? It was deleted by PROD in December 09 Claret Ash 10:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish veracity. Plus, a search of Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap and The Physiology of the Ascent of SAP By Jagadis Chandra Bose, both used as sources, suggests no species of Aloe is mentioned in either text. Claret Ash 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Claretash. Not sure if that was the article I was thinking of. I think I've shown my memory is not to be trusted since I was the one who did the last AFD but didn't remember doing so :) N^oformation ^Talk 01:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the name, I suspect Aloe Rubra may have been on the same topic. Nonetheless, wouldn't the previous AfD outcome make this article eligible for CSD:G4? I'm hesitant to push for G4 as the last AfD didn't exactly close with a resounding consensus (two participants) plus I can't see the previous article to compare. Claret Ash 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it would be, however I listed it for AFD having not recalled the old one and figured I'd let it run unless someone else wanted to be bold and CSD it. No big deal, it's not a keeper anyway so next time it's recreated it will be quick with two prior AFDs. N^oformation ^Talk 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been bold and submitted it for G4. Claret Ash 23:26, 16 January 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.