Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Raisin Reserve


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

National Raisin Reserve

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced, and seemingly skewed coverage in violation of WP:NPOV. Not finding enough coverage beyond what's there to meet WP:GNG. Specifically not notifying page creator, as they're globally locked per WMF. PROD removed after expiration. Waggie (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep and copy edit. Passes GNG. See source examples below. Another secondary option is to merge to Raisin . North America1000 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Associated Press
 * The Seattle Times
 * NPR
 * CNBC
 * National Review
 * Bloomberg Businessweek
 * Bloomberg (WP:NEWSBLOG, authored by a professional writer who has written for Newsweek, the Atlantic and the Economist)
 * Consumerist
 * The Washington Post
 * The Washington Post
 * Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
 * Newser
 * Harvard Law Review
 * Business Insider (short article)


 * Keep clearly passes GNG (and is a cool topic). I would not merge to raisin, should be brief mention there at most (US specific price control, not related to the sctual product) Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck part of my !vote above regarding merging. Better as a standalone article, imo. North America1000 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'd be interested in a more historical approach to much of the article, but it clearly passes WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:GNG. As for NPOV, if I understand the concern correctly, the article takes a view in favor of Horne's case, but this seems to me based on RS and could be balanced without deleting the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG, has historical significance to American agriculture. If a redirect were to be considered the best target would probably be Horne v. Department of Agriculture, but I think this subject has enough significance apart from the Supreme Court case to warrant its own article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2017 (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.