Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Speedy Keep The sourcing of the article is much improved so that, while the notability of the topic might still be questioned, deletion is not appropriate. I therefore withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Radagast3 and others for their good work. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum

Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable, just having perfunctory entries in long lists of similar plant varieties. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep because this AfD would set a really bad precedent leading to mass deletions of plant articles. This may be a POINT-making nomination, sadly. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point seems to be that we should have lots of plant articles regardless of their merit or quality. Please cite a policy which supports this right of plant varieties to be exempted from our usual policies and guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Raymie Humbert. I think that it's been generally accepted on Wikipedia that taxonomic classifications, even down to the species level, are notable enough to be kept just because they are what they are, but I haven't found any official policy specifically focusing on this. --Slon02 (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We once had a policy that said so explicitly, but that page seems to have vanished. However, editors in the life sciences certainly operate on that basis. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting Perhaps this is another Pokemon test in the making... Anyways my Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books searches shows a lot of literature for genus Bulbophyllum but only shows scant taxonomic data for B. rhodoglossum. I'm neutral for now.--Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Took me 3 minutes to find and insert at least some relevant information. I see absolutely no reason to set a precedent here. --Pgallert (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that you have added contain next to no information and the second, for example, has blank spaces where detailed sections are expected. It seems that a botanist found one specimen once. He may have claimed a species name as a scientific trophy, but multiple specimens are normally required for a species to be properly accepted as a single individuals may be freaks or otherwise unrepresentative. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then take another look. The time you should be able to provide, as you have saved some by not following WP:BEFORE. Name and taxonomy have been checked by the source, and the empty headings, inter alia, point to the fact that this species has not yet been cultivated - not too surprising for an orchid species from Vanuatu, if you ask me. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for sources before making this nomination per WP:BEFORE. The links provided in the article were unsatisfactory as they either did not mention the species or did not seem to be a a reliable source. Both Google Scholar and Google Books have nothing for this species - nothing at all. Even now, no-one has turned up any significant coverage. What are the distinguishing characteristics of this species? How do we know that it is not a hoax or fraud of the Piltdown Man variety? There seems to have been no independent confirmation of the supposed finding and so this still seems a raw scientific hypothesis which lacks the secondary sources required for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The International Plant Names Index and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (University of Vienna) are both independent secondary reliable sources that confirm the species, when it was described, and where the description was published. Those sources don't typically deal in hoaxes and frauds. They are reliable sources. A description would also be nice - that would be in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis and in other offline sources - but for now we have a nice plant stub waiting to be expanded. I don't think you should be expected to know all of this, and I believe you did due diligence and WP:BEFORE. Checking in first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would be a good step for non-plant people, before nominating a plant article for deletion. Project members are used to that there, and are quite helpful. You'll also find that project members have a strong consensus, perhaps unanimously, that a verifiable species is inherently notable enough for its own article. This should probably be in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, but it's not there at this point. First Light (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that you mention both seem to be catalogues which uncritically repeat this claim of a species. So far as I can tell, this claim is still based upon just one expedition and specimen. But science depends upon independent confirmation of its hypotheses. The Heslop-Harrison affair indicates that even distinguished professors of botany cannot be trusted alone. A single source is not enough for such a claim. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly Wikipedia's job to sit in judgement on the scientific community: we report the scientific consensus. If that changes (as it sometimes does) we change our articles. In this case, the consensus, accepted by multiple experts, is that this is a valid species. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CW, the sources that I mentioned are secondary, neutral, academic Reliable Sources, not "catalogs". Either alone is sufficient to keep a plant article, because our job as editors (as Radagast3 points out) is simply to report what reliable, academic scientific sources state. If you have reason to believe that a fraud is being perpetrated on the scientific community in this case, you need to take that up with the scientific community. First Light (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The nomination is a joke by somebody who thinks the oldest user of Twitter Ivy Bean is so obviously encyclopedic yet Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum a scientifically identified species isn't. This is why wikipedia is laughed at by some scholars in that cerain wikipedians are clueless as to what is encyclopedic. All species are notable for God's sake, just needs expansion. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of reliable sources about Ivy Bean which demonstrate the notability of that topic. Our topic here lacks similar notability and we need more than hand-waving assertions. Species do not have inherent notability because the concept is ill-defined. Originally, the idea was they were distinct creations of God, as in Noah's Ark. Now we understand that many organisms are quite plastic and that lower orders, such as bacteria, exchange genes quite promiscuously and so are not discrete creations. This family of orchids is similarly indistinct and our article tells us that "This large number and the great variety of its forms make this genus a real nightmare for a taxonomist: 120 sections and subgenera have been listed. Some of these may deserve a generic status. Several species have as many as ten synonyms. Up to now a general review of this genus is lacking. But as Carlyle A. Luer of Missouri Botanical Garden disentangled the similar chaos in the Pleurothallidinae, so we may expect that a phylogenetic study of this genus will gain us a better insight in this large genus." In other words, the status of this species is dubious and we should not have an article upon it until proper research and classification has been done to provide the reliable sources which are currently lacking. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd agree with you that sources on the specific species are lacking on the Internet. I'm baffled though as to why you picked this particular articles when we have severla thousands similar stubs on wikipedia. I agree that such articles need sources to write a decent articles otherwise they will remain short stubs forever but a verified species is usually acceptable on here. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I arrived at this particular article by clicking on the random article link. The name is amusingly similar to Bulbasaur or the botanically named Ivy Bean but that's just a coincidence. I expect that there are many more such articles but such is the scale of Wikipedia - hundreds of articles are created and deleted every day. I am sampling some of this rich variety and acting upon what I find accordingly to our usual policies and guidelines. It is my habit to patrol Wikipedia and to vary my routine so that I develop a better understanding and do not become stale. Now perhaps you can explain what you're doing here, given our recent conflict at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have time to stalk you, you are flattering yourself. I saw the AFD message on Ser Amantio's talk page. Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation which helpfully clears the air. My compliments on your new signature, by the way. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's nothing weak about this keep. I assert that all species of organism are inherently notable. If not much is known about them with which to write an article, that means we need more research, not for the article to be deleted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a core policy that this is not a venue for original research. Scholars do not seem to have studied this putative species in any detail and it is not our role to anticipate them. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify what the problem is here. If this is a distinct species, then I assert that it deserves a page, even if that page is able to contain nothing more than a single sentence identifying it as a species and a taxonomy box. If the species is not identifiable as a separate species, or if the name is a junior synonym, then the name should be a redirect to the correct or closest species name. Be aware that we do have subspecies articles here as well (eg Western Lowland Gorilla) and breeds (eg Chihuahua (dog)) and even an emerging subbreed (Miniature Texas Longhorn). All types of organisms are inherently notable IMHO. However, I readily accept that species are more continuous than discrete, and constantly evolving, especially through animal husbandry. But for this article, that's a problem for the botanists to work on. It's not for us to decide the matter for them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to have been created in rote fashion by exploding a list. I see no evidence that botanists can or will be able to do anything with it because there are no sources with significant detail. Plant breeders create innumerable crosses and varieties and nature does much the same, it seems. We should confine ourselves to the notable cases because Wikipedia is not a catalogue or database of indiscriminate info. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been recognised as a species since 1913; there is no OR. Our policy has generally been that all recognised species are notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on the grounds that this is a nomination by a silly editor that thinks Smelly socks is a good article, why on earth would you want to delete an article about a species of plant--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To a list of bulbophyllum supposed "species."Comment Verifiability at least must be solidly satisfied for an article about a species to remain. It is easy to make up a species name by adding a modifier to a root such as "Bulbasaurus" or "Bulbophyllum" or whatever. Most of the references in the long series of bulbophyllum stubs are internet sites which do not meet the standard of reliable sources. At a minimum. is it listed in standard handbooks of orchids? As a separate species, does that mean these flowers are "reproductively isolated" from other orchids, and cannot produce fertile offspring when cross pollinated, or does it just mean that someone saw an orchid with slight color variation from other closely related orchids of the same species and made up a new name for the "species" he discovered? Flower fanciers tramping through the woods have a high incentive to "discover a new species." Appearing as a member of a long list as in the German language reference to the present article is not that convincing. There are scads of bulbophyllum stubs referenced only to internet checklists and the like, with no more information that "they are a species." A more encyclopedic solution might be to include this one on a list of other bulbophyllums "species." Edison (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an astonishing description of how botanists go about their science. Is your mistrust towards their methodologies backed by experience? --Pgallert (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly, science is full of operators and shit merchants who will seek fame by claiming an "AMAZING DISCOVERY" which is not borne out by painstaking laboratory analysis. You claim "Bulbophyllum clopathia" (an orchid you found near a path) is a new species? Prove it." Edison (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This species has been recognised since 1913. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. I understand why the nom was made, but it now is a well-sourced, valid stub. Bearian (talk)
  • Keep. If something is listed as a plant or animal species (not just a variety) in standard biological literature, it means that it has been described, with a fair amount of detail, in a "reliable source". Namely, some botanist or zoologist has at some point published an article in a peer-reviewed journal (or an equivalent venue) where he, at the very least, described a type specimen of the species. That article is, at least theoretically, can be read by anyone with access to a large academic library that keeps old journals in the field. Now, of course, a particular species may have been "closed" later on, when other experts claimed that e.g. the Brontosaurus is really the same thing as the Apatosaurus described by other researchers; but even in that case the "alternative name" (known as a "synonym (taxonomy)") should be kept by us as redirect, and the existence of that synonym (and the article that introduced it) ought to be mentioned in the respective article. Sometime there is a dispute as to whether a purported species claimed by one researcher is really a species or just a hybrid; (see e.g. Mauremys iversoni - possibly just a product of turtle farms). But even in that case the ensuing debate is documented by journal publications. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Described as a separate species" does not prove it is isolated reproductively. I could go downstairs and say "LOOK! An Orange cat. It must be a NEW SPECIES!" Did the flower fanciers do more than that to prove that this varient appearance is an isolated species? Edison (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguing against the biological species concept, and not successfully. Taxonomists use several very reliable indicators in different taxa to determine what are new species and what are subspecies, varieties, or forms. I mean this in the best possible way, but it takes years of training to appreciate the differences in forms, combined with biogeographical information, flowering time, or environment, that indicate a new plant is indeed a species not previously described. For example, I just returned from the International Carnivorous Plant Society conference in which a taxonomist was relating stories of his recent trips and preliminary data. He noted that preliminary data indicates there are several species present in a few different species complexes, but there is going to be a lot of hard work ahead to document them properly in order for their recognition. This is not hand-waving; this is hard science. Taxonomy is an educated and well-informed opinion, of course, and disagreements over taxa do occur. And we do rearrange things with new molecular information. And we new information arises, we update our plant articles! We could always use more help, though, care to quit griping and get writing? Rkitko (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you use Google indiscriminately then you'll find items like our own article. These are not reliable because they are amateur and just repeat or catalogue the original finding. If you go to Google Scholar, then you'll find nothing for this species, nothing at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not in the habit of using Google indiscriminately. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Radagast3. All species are considered notable and their articles shouldn't be at AfD. See also WP:DEFACTO. —fetch·comms 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any verifiable species is inherently notable. This one has been Verified with Reliable Sources. First Light (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like any other validly described species, it has been the subject of a scientific paper. The validity of this species is affirmed by secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: see the Granulifusus musasiensis AfD. As an obvious keep, it's clear the nominator made what must kindly be described as a mistake. This is not reason for comment-war. Close, move on, continue to improve this on-line encyclopaedia.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - species that is verifiable, so notable. Granted, the article could use some expansion, but it's notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I note there is one merge vote but not actually any delete votes. Snow is cold and hell is hot. StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, obviously. The nominator seems to have a problem with the biological species concept and a misunderstanding of what science requires when new species are named and how science operates when species are sunk into synonymy or shuffled around in rank. None of that is a reason to delete. Rkitko (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species concept is rather dated, as discussed above, and seems problematic for Wikipedia in that estimates of species are of the order of 100,000,000 or so.
  • Review of improvements Radagast3 and others have done some good work to improve the article's sourcing. I particularly like the Kew checklist which provides a good audit trail showing who accepted the entry and why. And now we have a link to the original entry in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis so that now, for the first time, I learn what colour the plant is, ("Die Blüten sind weiss, das Labellum rot mit gelber Spitze."). I remain unconvinced that the plant has sufficient notability to warrant a full entry as we usually require multiple, detailed, independent sources for this. But we are now happily past the point where deletion would be sensible and so I shall withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bulbophyllum_rhodoglossum&oldid=1069232415"