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 no consensus. May need renaming, but that's an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunzea sp. Wadbilliga

[edit]

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

Recognized species in general are assumed notable, but the subject of this article may fail verifiability and notability through lack of reliable sources. The article says this is "informally recognized" and it "is yet to be scientifically described and named." It does not appear at all in 3 of the four references, at least under the name Wadbilliga. The only ref listed which mentions it is "PlantNET - NSW Flora Online" whose home page says "This site is to be regarded as a prototype presented as a demonstration, and not necessarily as an authoritative resource." Perhaps someone can find better references. Edison (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the taxobox, for lack of formal recognition (yet), but I don't see a need for the article to be deleted. I noted one ref as a deadlink, but added another that is similar for verification (it took some searching). The name Kunzea "Badja Carpet" is that of the formally recognised cultivar, and will be a redirect when I remember how we render these as page titles. This situation is very common in some genera, and these names are used while they await a formal description. PlantNet is not an authority for botanical nomenclature, as reiterated above, but it serves to help confer notability. cygnis insignis 03:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the cultivar seems to have some non-trivial coverage. The fact that the naming is not yet official shouldn't be a barrier to having an article in cases where secondary coverage can be shown to exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this title, and maybe move relevant content to Kunzea 'Badja Carpet'. The cultivar seems to be derived from what is perhaps an aberrant wild population of Kunzea capitata (said population apparently not having been given a scientific name in the 41+ years it has been known). It's not good practice for Wikipedia to include article on undescribed species of organisms (the argument to keep rather than delete of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on the species being described scientifically). The Badja Carpet cultivar has gone through the appropriate publication steps for a cultivar name, but not a species name.Plantdrew (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Kunzea 'Badja Carpet' which seems to be the name that it is known under. Scientific nomenclature should not be used without reliable sources. For use of the name "Kunzea ‘Badja Carpet’" in reliable sources see,e.g., here, here and here. I agree with editor Plantdrew's reasoning, and renaming accomplishes what he suggests. Remove the resultant redirect, as WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note. Could somebody please clarify the suggested new name? Is the intent that the article title include the quotes? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including single quotes is intended, as that is the convention for plant cultivar names (see Cultivar#Cultivar_names). Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2015 (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.