Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepalese walnuts

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. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese walnuts

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

This is not an encyclopedia article; it is an analysis of the commercial possibilities of growing walnuts in Nepal. I had prodded it saying "This is not an encyclopedia article; it is an essay or report about the commercial possibilities of walnut growing in Nepal. It is part of a recent cluster of such essays, described here. We already have an article on this walnut species at Juglans regia." Prod was removed by author with the comment, "This article was proposed for deletion because of it's report-like nature. I have removed these sections to make it more encyclopedic in nature. This post is specific to Nepal which is important to genetically distinguish." Also, an IP post on the talk page said "There is indeed already a page on Juglans regia but it is very generalized and in microbiological terms, a Nepalese walnut can be very different than a general walnut. Distinguishing between them is therefore essential." However, it should be noted that the article does NOT make any genetic or other distinction between Nepalese and other walnuts, and the "report-like" material was NOT removed from the article - just a few section headings. IMO this is still an essay or commercial analysis, not suitable as a Wikipedia article. MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't appear that there's a distinct "Nepalese" walnut. All we've got basically is that walnuts can be grown profitably in Nepal (nothing especially notable about that) and there's a odd law against cutting down walnut trees and selling the wood. All else is pretty generic walnut info. Keep. Looks much better now. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as edited). I gutted the article, and now I think it's worth keeping. Not the best article ever, but no need to trash it entirely. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved to Walnut production in Nepal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Heymann standard met by Calliopejen1's work. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute It's nice that a lot of the cruft has been removed from the article. But does that mean that what remains is notable enough for an article? What we learn from the article is that Nepal currently has little or no commercial walnut production. The original article speculated about whether Nepal might develop walnuts as a commercial crop. With that speculation removed, we are left with an article about nothing - since Nepal does not currently produce a commercial walnut crop. Wikipedia has no other "Walnut production in…" articles, not even for the major sources. (The world's top sources of walnuts are the US, China, and Iran, per Walnut#Production.) There is no good reason for us to have an article about walnut production in a country that is not a significant producer of walnuts! --MelanieN (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1, Qwertyus, Clarityfiend: Any reaction or response to this comment? --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: this is a rather obscure topic, and I wouldn't mind a merge into Walnut or Juglans regia or Fruit production in Nepal or Walnut production by country or whatever. But I don't see a reason to delete. The current article has a clearly defined topic and establishes sufficient facts about this topic by references to reliable sources. There being no articles about walnut production worldwide is a shame, but it's no reason to delete this article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is enough there for an article, but the new title is misleading. Walnut use in Nepal better describes the contents. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Day-Old Dishwater Weak Keep: Yeah, I agree with Melanie: this is absurd. This is like talking about Christmas Tree production in Plymouth County, just because you could dredge up some references to the half-dozen blokes running Christmas tree farms in SE Massachusetts. It's about as trivial and silly as you can get, and it bugs me that there are tens of thousands of articles on *real* subjects that could've really used the TLC this joke's gotten. I just don't see any legit policy grounds to delete. It's well sourced. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MelanieN - I don't see any evidence that this is a notable topic. Just because there are references that support the fact that walnuts exist and can be grown commercially (most of them) and even one or two that speculate that they MIGHT be growable in Nepal, there's still no evidence that walnut production in a country that does not, in fact, commercially produce walnuts comes close to being notable.PianoDan (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2014 (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.