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 and none appears likely to emerge. A discussion on whether to merge can continue on the Talk page. StarMississippi 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge any useful information into the species article at Helianthus annuus. We don't want articles on every cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough references that make me think that this is a reasonably popular cultivar. I haven't found a reference that explicitly says so, though. I agree that we don't need to list every cultivar, but this one seems notable enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all convinced that what seem entirely run of the mill coverage confers notability. I would have thought that if it is worth mentioning the place would be in a section on cultivars in the article on the appropriate species. Which does not have a page. Surely a species is inherently more notable than a cultivar?TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongToneIt has sources about the cultivar, I would say that this is notable. I'm puzzled about what you are trying to say here, and why you have WP:AFD this in the first place. If you think this is not notable, I would be more than happy to hear your reason, but I would prefer a conclusion. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I hear a whirring noise coming from Linnaeus' grave? What happens when (as is very common) a plant has a number of common names? Not that it makes any difference, this is a really dumb preference, since the Latin name much more informative, not only grouping related species together but also often telling one something about the plant itself.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In assessing cultivars, we need to look at whether that particular cultivar has a significance beyond the species as a whole, and the species as a whole has a significance irrelevant to the cultivar. For example, King Edward potatoes have a history, culture, and literature beyond a normal potato, but the normal potato itself goes way beyond the King Edward, so they both have their own articles. Landsberg erecta doesn't need its own article because although a lot has been written about it, it's only as a major cultivar of Arabidopsis thaliana used in plant science, which is the major application of Arabidopsis itself, so Landsberg erecta and Arabidopsis thaliana have little independence from one another and can be treated together. The bar for making a cultivar independently notable should be quite high. This one doesn't meet it. Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Doesnt it have three sources about it though? Or does it have to be significantly broad topic from its species to warrant its own article? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources about this cultivar with reasonable sources to warrant its own article. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see plenty of references that establish that this cultivar exists. I do not see a single one that serves in any way to establish notability. Even those that are not merely listings on websites offering seeds for sale (ie the RHS and the BBC Gardener's World look to me like purely run of the mill coverage. I have no idea how many commercially available sunflower cultivars exist; I am sure that they are legion. What makes this one worthy of particular notice? There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest it is remarkable. Certainly susceptibility to slug damage is not in any way uncommon. TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is probably the most notable sunflower cultivar; it's one of two cultivars mentioned on the history page of the National Sunflower Association. This is the variety that was developed as an oilseed crop in Russia, and brought back to North America in the 19th century. Most (all?) modern oilseed sunflowers have this in their ancestry. But it's not clear what to call it; the National Sunflower Association calls it 'Mammoth Russian', and it's "Mammoth Russian" or "Giant Russian" here and you can also find it as "Russian Giant" or "Russian Mammoth". There is no International Cultivar Registration Authority for Helianthus, so it is difficult to determine which name is correct. Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unclear if the article should be kept or redirected… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already !voted so I'm not re-voting. But I think Plantdrew has made the strongest argument for keeping. But the history page describes the breeding history of the sunflower in general, and doesn't really get very specific about exact cultivars and genetics, and if we haven't got a clearly-defined name, there's always the risk that we'll be talking about different things. I still feel it would be best to put the information about its Russian heritage in history section of Common sunflower which will give it much better context for our readers. The fact it's referenced in seed-catalogues and analogous sites is no more an indicator of notability than the fact that a book is available on Amazon, Waterstones and Abe books etc. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. This one is a little harder for me because of possible maybes, but I have to go off of what I could find for sources. My rule of thumb for cultivar, variety, etc. notability is that it has to stand out from a run of the mill plant or seed catalogue entry for sources (essentially WP:NOTHOWTO policy for gardening). I don't see that here. Plantdrew's comment does have promise though if the variety has a decent historical narrative like that even setting aside name mixups. There's only passing mention in the sources they give though, so I'm still left at delete. If such sources are found, then I'd gladly change to keep (and figure later out whether Russian Giant/Mammoth Russian should be the target/redirect). KoA (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Although plantdrew puts forward a good argument for this particular cultivar being notable, I would point out that there was no mention of this in the original article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to common sunflower; the only provided source which isn't just run-of-the-mill coverage has 2 sentences about this cultivar. AryKun (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2023 (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.
