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. Secret ^account 07:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False marva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article appears to be a hoax (or possibly a phonetic misspelling of something which I can't determine). The article was created by a user who was blocked for vandalism. The only reference to "false marva" I can find on the web that isn't scraped from Wikipedia is this page: (http://poet70.tripod.com/journal12.html) Plantdrew (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks any evidence of existence, let alone notability. No prejudice to later recreation if sources are provided. - htonl (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This name has absolutely no currency whatsoever, nor does there appear to be any other sort of "marva" tree that would inspire there to be a "false marva" tree. Under the working assumption that this was a phonetic (or other) misspelling of the tree's appropriate name, I tried to locate any tree meeting the limited description present, but I was not able to unambiguously associate this with any actual plant (and certainly not any plant with a common name that could plausibly resemble this article's title). This is either a hoax, or a mistitled substub lacking the context necessary to identify its subject. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails verifiability with absolutely no indication that this term is used. If this is a plant, then I suspect we already have an article on it, but there is no point in trying to uncover that for a redirect as it would seem that this "name" for any such plant is so seldom used that there is not trace of it anywhere, not even in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Whatever this is, if anything, is surely known by a more common term. a13ean (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (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.