Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espresso crema effect


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Espresso crema effect

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, and tagged for notability since 2011 — the only usage in Google Scholar are Tschegg (2009) and a passing mention in another article which references Tschegg; the other reference does not mention this topic. Was redirected (inappropriately) in 2009 to Espresso by. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established after ten years.--Srleffler (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with glossary of archaeology per WP:NOTDIC and WP:ATD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete all sources are for the Tschegg article, I think he may have come up with the term, but it never caught on. Two hits in GScholar, this article and one in Spanish. Nothing in Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.