Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaulim

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 as it has not become clear what exactly the topic is and how it can been expanded. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaulim

Kaulim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Same as Uyot, this article has been around for a while. A couple members of WP:PLANTS have tried to identify the species, but there appear to be no reliable sources for this common name. Without the species name and in the absence of any relable sources to expand this article, I propose it be deleted or possibly transwikied to Wiktionary. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I think some of these google results verify that it is real. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep:One source link indicates that Kaulim is used in paper-making, that suggests hemp, jute, or possibly Sesbania aculeata. What grows abundantly in Sikkim? --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: If we could positively identify which species it was, we would redirect or create a viable article for it with a taxobox, etc. As with Uyot, neither of these common names can be tracked to a binomial. This is not a question of whether it's real or not, but whether it warrants an article on Wikipedia. It stands as more of a Wiktionary entry at the moment. Rkitko ^(talk) 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless at least one reliable source can be found. Without a reliable source how do we even know what this stuff is? 1 != 2 15:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with delete, since an off-hand comment in a Darjeeling newspaper is not a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This only seems to exist as an explanation for the name of Kalimpong. I haven't found anything that really discusses it as a plant, let alone allows a species identification (although there seems to be a kangaroo grass relative that grows in Sikkim that is used sometimes for paper pulp, there's nothing connecting it to this name). Unless someone has access to local (probably non-English) sources in Sikkim itself, we really don't have enough information for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - The Kalimpong article has its own etymology section that doesn't even mention this plant as a possible source for the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm asking around some online forums for more information on this plant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for doing that. If someone can tell us which species this is and point us to a reliable source, that'd be fantastic! I'd withdraw the deletion nom, then. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - unless a reliable source can be found --Melburnian (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It makes little sense to have an entry on a plant based on a local language, apparently notable only as a possible root for the name of a Bhutanese town. If the plant can be identified I would certainly change my vote to Keep. Tim Ross·^talk 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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.