Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of dried cherries


 * 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. It might be worth looking into a merge (i.e., discussing on talk page) but as there's no real consensus here for that either, I don't want to include that in the official closure of this AfD. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

History of dried cherries

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

Contested prod for what appears to be spam, pure and simple. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources of specifically drying Montmorency cherries as opposed to cherries and/or fruit in general. The two 'references' are the retailer and the university that works with them. The main editors seem to be SPA and have a COI. Nuttah (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question (this is not a keep or delete vote)- I swear this seems familiar, was something like this at afd in the last couple weeks?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing....I checked the page history and there's nothing in the deletion log. KuyaBriBri Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it: Articles for deletion/History dried tart cherries KuyaBriBri Talk 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was Articles for deletion/History dried tart cherries by the same original author. However, it was a speedy close due to copyvio which as far as I can tell is not an issue here. Due to that, I don't believe it is a G4 or strictly relevant here. Nuttah (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I thought I was just crazy. ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This re-creation is barely re-written from the information at the bottom of this page: http://www.utahsredbarn.com/ which was the website from which the original copyright-violating material was taken from for the prior article. It is probably close enough to still constitute a copyright violation but it would be better to let the AfD run so we can stop replaying this with this marketing person. Drawn Some (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The nomination appears to be incomplete. In the meanwhile, I would support delete. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's missing? Links from article and Articles for Deletion Log are ok for me. Nuttah (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination now complete, and discussion has convinced me to change my mind to move to Dried cherry per Badagnani. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The content is potentially encyclopaedic, but not appropriate as a stand-alone article, but might be appropriate as part of a wider article, perhaps on cherries or on dried fruit more generally. The fact that the only substantive section has the same title as the article speaks for itself.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone expunges the entire thing and rewrites it in the next 7 days. Perhaps an encyclopedic topic, but this content is irredeemable spam, pure and simple. It describes a single attempt at drying cherries in a single metropolitan area. The only people who have written anything non-trivial about that actual attempt at drying cherries are the people involved personally (the six pages in "Western Profiles of Innovative Agricultural Marketing" are about their marketing strategy, not about dried cherries). Merging it anywhere would violate WP:WEIGHT --- dried cherries have a history going back for centuries --- one experiment in the 1970s has no significance even to this narrow topic, let alone larger topics like dried fruit or cherry. cab (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a new dried cherry article which owes absolutely nothing to this piece of spam. I reiterate my position: Delete, do not move, do not content-merge or history-merge to dried cherry. cab (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Dried cherry (comparable to dried cranberry, raisin, or prune). Badagnani (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see no problem with someone starting a Dried cherry article. However, this article is not a starting point for that. This article is (disguised) spam detailing the creation of a single, non notable, product based on dried cherries. Nuttah (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. Do not merge. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Oppose Merge - The material is self-serving spam, and does not pass verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Oppose Merge Per above discussion, a new dried cherry article has been started. I agree with cab's comment about the history of dried cherries vis-à-vis this article which does seem to be (barely) disguised spam as Nuttah mentions. Geoff  TC 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge. Sorry but we don't delete content because it's advertorial when we can simply fix it per WP:AFD. This seems to be a notable chapter in dried cherry history in the United States. Dried cherries have been documented going back hundreds of years around the world yet this is essentially one paragraph focussed only on developments in the 1970s/1980s. Dried cherries are a notable product in the US so this is certainly a notable subject. However, dried cherry is a very short article and this is also very short. The solution here, absent an editor quickly adding in a massive history of dried cherries justifying this as a stand-alone article, is merging this into the parent article. Even if this is being propogated by some marketer we can use it if it's true and wikified. The history of all food products is tied to companies who specialize in them and making improvements to their industries, We should find ways to make that work for us and this is part of that process. -- Banj e  b oi   10:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'seems to be a notable chapter in dried cherry history' is the big problem. The trouble is there is no independent evidence that the contents of this article are in any way notable. Nuttah (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nuttah. Normally, I would agree with Benjiboi, as we should fix an advertising tone but this is only the instance when when reliable sources exist to corroborate the information.  It doesn't in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. There is no evidence pasted onto this article yet. That is a different issue from something being false or unverifiable. Here are quite a few bits that could be tied together to show that what we have is accurate and independently sourced. Pop in the name of the other companies and you'd likely find sourcing to support those as well. -- Banj e  b oi   19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those links, and the companies in the article, are related and not independent. What this article explains is how they went about identifying the optimal process for their business - as every company (that survives) does. Unless there is independent evidence they were the first to do this the process they have used is not unique, inventive or worthy of peer review - no more than my local cafe selecting what equipment they would use is. Nuttah (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're local cafe, however, likely isn't explaining how it changed the processing of coffee beans or milk, probably because they didn't. What we have here is a food processing advancement tied to technology and research. Sorry, I just don't see this as something that is untrue or unverifiable, just something we could use better sourcing and more context to understand if and how it is notable. This article isn't called "great advancements in dried cherry processing". Absent evidence that what we have is actually a hoax I have little reason to dispute what is here. Online sourcing suggests it's true and likely offline sourcing devoted to advancements of equipment in dried cherry processing - quite a read I imagine - likely would as well. -- Banj e  b oi   19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'What we have here is a food processing advancement tied to technology and research' - not even the article makes claims to any advancements. Every dried fruit fruit producer, from cottage industry to multinationals, has to undertake some trial and error tests to match the process to local conditions. This is also an ongoing quality assurance process beyond initial tests. In terms of the history of dried cherries what is included in this article is irrelevant. Nuttah (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not a dried cherry expert. -- Banj e  b oi   20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with what Nuttah explains, if the process developed by the company was of any significance, there should be some third-party coverage of it. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I believe there is. -- Banj e  b oi   23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep/Merge to dried cherry per Benjiboi. Incidentally, doesn't seem offensively spam-ish to me.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:34, 23 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.