Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agropedia


 * 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   Keep as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agropedia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Written like an advertisement, creator was User:Agropedia so there's a conflict of interest here. Was prodded with:

''A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: – news, books, scholar  Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.'' Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. The pieces from Indian Express and SciDev show some notability, the collaboration partners and the funding agencies are all individually notable (and while probably not relevant to notability, the concept is an innovation in a country with such a large agri-economy). Send to WP:CLEANUP. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another piece on Down to Earth and the SciDev article was also featured on the UN CAPSA flash, and then there's a one page reference about how scientists are using social media to improve farming in Content Nation: Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Technology Changes Our Lives and Our Future, by John Blossom, ISBN 0470379219, Page 67.
 * The SciDev piece was also co-published by The Guardian UK, SeedQuest, Environmental News Network and also a few universities in the US and Europe. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, "written like an advertisement" is not a reason to delete an article.  It's a reason to rewrite from a neutral point of view.  Second, a COI is not a reason to delete an article.  If Barack Obama had written the article on himself, he would still be notable.  Third, Spaceman Spiff has shown this article is marginally notable. Note: If the consensus is to keep, this article should be added to the List of online encyclopedias.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except notable people usually aren't the ones to write articles about themselves or their affiliations. If something was truly notable, then an unrelated third party would eventually get around to making an article for it, wouldn't they? Barack Obama wouldn't be writing an article about himself for obvious reasons--he's notable so he wouldn't have to. That being said, the COI was hardly the reason for deletion, I just thought it was worth noting.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just found out that the person who removed the prod was in fact User:Useragropedia after User:Agropedia was banned. I wonder if there's a connection between the two?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The user was banned because of their username, not any other vio, and probably came back under a similar username. This can just as well be an honest error due to not knowing the rules (I didn't know about user name vios until now). As far as removing PRODs, anyone including the creator can do it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question for nom: What are the links above to Google news meant to mean? The parameters you have set are:"2009 June 10" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release". Nowhere in this do I see Agropedia. Same for Google books and Google scholar. Given that the references above were all in the article and searchable on Google, I'm inclined to think that this qualifies for a Speedy Keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm not the one who did the prod--I was just reiterating it (although I don't see the problem with it). That being said, I just did a Google news search for Agropedia for ALL dates with no further restrictions and I still only got five results .--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I downgraded from speedy to prod, and those are the links that come with every prod-nn. They are intended to subtract out some of the promotional urls, although often there's little or no difference in the number of hits you get searching on the subject itself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, you've linked the GNews, Gbooks in the nomination statement to the page title, so if you view this on the main log page, it searches for the date, not the name of the article. It searches for the article only if you open the Afd page directly. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of Course Keep: It is Government of India nation wide project and sponsored by the World Bank, and involves over seven premier institutions of India, and has created a buzz in the scientist and agriculture community, even mentioned a UN related websites UNCASAPA, see references.--Ekabhishek (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work, but is definitely verified to be notable. A project related to the Indian government, World Bank, UN, etc. Steven Walling (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources to establish notability and nice work by User:Ekabhishek in essentially rewriting it and adding referencing. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2009 (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.