Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulmus minor 'Corky Cloud'

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. czar 05:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus minor 'Corky Cloud'

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, does not appear to have any coverage outside of databases and has zero hits on Google Scholar. Previously nominated for PROD by Mccapra, dePROD by an admin following an objection by the initial editor on the talk page: While accepting that even as a stub, the article is rather thin, I would argue for its retention, simply on the basis that Wikipedia has hitherto maintained a digest of all known elm species and cultivars, past and present. Its existence as a stub is far more likely to prompt additions to create a comprehensive article than its deletion. In response to this objection, I'll say that the deletion nomination is not due to the state of the article, but rather due to the apparent total lack of coverage in secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No coverage in secondary reliable sources can be observed/found. Celestina007 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was the rationale for my PROD. Mccapra (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – cultivars which are not well known and so do not appear in reliable secondary sources can be briefly mentioned or discussed on the relevant species or genus page, but I agree that they should not have their own article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any independent sources establishing notability. Just being listed in a seed/plant order catalogue doesn't reach the bar for cultivar notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (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.