Talk:Piranha Bud

Do we even need this? It sounds minor and sound be merged to both of those two articles. I'm skipping this entry for a while... :P
 * Perhaps it's a disambiguation page. 04:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 * Doesn't sound like an official name. - 06:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hey guys, I added Bungee Buds. I was surprised they weren't added yet. Kobble

Delete?
Is this really needed? It's a conjecturally-named hypothetical species page mostly filled with biological speculation about the life cycle of Piranha Plants. Binarystep (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
 * The article's far too speculative for my tastes. I'm fine with removal.
 * Hear, hear! LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

Delete this page
This an unofficial term with no strong basis supporting it. Yes, there are a few large Piranha Plants with smaller buds coming out of them, but why do we need an article that does nothing but regurgitate information from other articles and speculate about these smaller buds? This is why we have the other articles to cover them. Even with something like Baseball Boy, at least it's an official term (and for the record, I don't like that article, either). This article, meanwhile, has had a [citation needed] on its name since 2015 and nothing has come of it. Nobody is searching for this, and this isn't helping anyone without being worse copies of other articles: at the very least, we can fully convert it into a disambiguation page for the other buds, but I support completely deleting it.

Proposer: Deadline: August 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Delete

 * 1) "Piranha Bud" is not a term that is used. I don't see why we need to keep it around.
 * 2) - Looks like this page is just an overly detailed disambiguation to me.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Do nothing

 * 1) I feel more comfortable following our policy on conjecture with this article.

Comments
@Wildgoosespeeder: There has never been a "base" species that the other buds could then be linked to as subspecies. If there was a generic "Piranha Bud" that just happened to never be named, then I would agree with you, but as it stands, this is a subject that hasn't even been shown to concretely exist. All we can do is speculate about the possibility of a proto-bud, and I do not think that's necessary. 17:18, 7 August 2017 (EDT)