Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stayman apple


 * 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. There were no arguments for deletion other than those made by the nominator; the article Stayman Winesap has been merged redirected to this one, with a redirect. Mandsford 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stayman apple

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article doesn't assert its subject's notability nor does it provide much information on the topic (a variety of apple). In fact, the last paragraph of the article is simply suggestions on what to do with apples (cider, healthy snack, apple juice, caramel) that has nothing to do with the specific apple the article is about cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to exist; see and . Not sure if that's enough for it to be notable; the hits are very scarce. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stayman Winesap, apparently the same. JNW (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the descriptions, this appears to be a different variety than the Stayman Winesap (yellow or green vs. red or red/green). From the article on [|apples], there are about 7500 varieties. Do we want an article on each one? From the link on Stayman Winesap, there are quite a few varieties of apples sold by Trees of Antiquity that are not included in Wikipedia. Tangurena (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stayman Winesap. I'm fairly certain they are the same, having done a bit of internet research - see for example. Chris (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was trying to find something of the sort through Googling but I came up short. Thanks for finding that! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 15:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to preexisting article Stayman Winesap. Deor (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. Has sources that're beyond passing mentions and there are a lot of them.
 * Variety is primary subject of many --no quotemarks is appropriate in this case, on breeding, diseases etc, e.g this Amer. J. Bot. article has in depth Stayman apple focus. Several industry  as well as early sources  and, turn up, too. I expect the pre-1900s origin makes it less likely we'll find sources like agricultural newspapers (e.g Farmer) online. Complex sciencey genetics stuff probably needs NAL or similar research library access.
 * On significance, out of almost 100 varieties grown commercially in the US, Stayman's among 15 that account for more than 90 percent of commercial production. . Chris's link (plus ) show it's parent from which several common strains sprang.
 * It did assert its subject's notability with "Stayman's are a very popular cultivar of apple". At first, that looks POV, but various sources back up the underlying point. Building any fruit article inevitably means sourcing material from country/state fruit-type marketing boards and larger nurseries involved in rare variety preservation or research. It's easy for their language style to affect writing. Part of its last paragraph was non specific, though varieties' characteristics can make them the objective option for specific drinks/dishes; same for potatoes. --92.30.85.175 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Stayman" is the correct name, while "Stayman Winesap" is incorrect, per Penn StateU Fruit Research Center, along with the definitive USDA 'GRIN' program and USDA–CornellU Genetic Resources Unit Malus Catalog  which are authoritative on classification/names. Because those establish the correct name, I'll merge "Stayman Winesap" into "Stayman apple". As few differences are visible, apart from errors in the older one, straightforward smerging rather than making this a redirect then moving the other over it is logical. --92.30.85.175 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement that the name Stayman Winesap "is incorrect" is not borne out by the usage of that name in scholarly articles. I think that your redirection of that article to the one being considered here was premature (as I indicated in my reversion of that edit, which was in turn reverted by you). When we have duplicate articles on a topic, we normally keep the older one; if you think its title is incorrect, WP:RM is the place to suggest a change. Deor (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement the name is incorrect comes from the above Penn StateU publication (Table 1-6B. "Parentage of common and new apple cultivars" p. 17), quote: "Incorrectly called Stayman Winesap". The other sources in the Comment concur.


 * Your search doesn't say what you think it says. Google returns comma separated names (‘thinga,  thingb’) for a "halfofname otherhalf" query. There are 2 separate varieties: 'Stayman', and its parent the "Winesap".


 * If you limit your quotes-enclosed "Stayman Winesap" search (using advanced search), to the last fifteen years (1995–2010), to reflect modern scholarship (and for purpose of this discussion), the amount of results decreases fivefold to 96.


 * Of those 96, I counted at least ten that use "Stayman", but adjacently mention the variety "Winesap". For example, the 3rd result has "Jonathan, York, Stayman, Winesap, and other varieties have decreased in importance", another has "whereas, varieties viz., Rome Beauty, Jonathan, Stayman, Winesap, and Mclntosh", another "Virginia produces eleven major varieties: Red delicious, Golden Delicious, York, Rome, Stayman, Winesap, Granny Smith", and so on.


 * Some only contain the term(s) through citing another paper e.g the Apples: botany, production, and uses book uses "Stayman" itself, but also cites two works consulted; of which the 1937 one uses "Stayman Winesap" while the newer 1961 study uses "Stayman". Not all results are "scholarly articles" either. Around 20+ are mass market cookery books, and one's a cycle routeguide! The bicycle one uses "Stayman Winesap", incidentally. Two recipe books that I selected at random used "Stayman".


 * Here's what happens if we adapt your search--same year range, search on 'all words' (not as exact phrase): Stayman apple. There are 391 results (clicked through to last page to confirm). Even when you add -"Stayman Winesap" there are still 298. Far more than 96. I appreciate hits, while helpful, can be an inexact metric. I also accept not all will necessarily be for the "Stayman" apple; a few could be for its sports (aka mutation strain) such as "Stayman Red". As the variety under discussion is among the top 15 commercial ones, however, most results will be for the former.


 * Oh there are uses of "Stayman Winesap", but the specialised RSs, modern scholarship and bulk of sources prefer and/or assert as correct "Stayman". 92.30.85.175 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your statement that my change was a redirection is not borne out by [ the log]. As that shows, I described it as a merge, then you, in apparent agreement about what it was, called it a merge. The placement of, part of any merge, doesn't make it "a redirection". Your comments come close to implying I attempted to subvert the earlier redirect !votes. Not so. As you can see, at least two editors express uncertainty over whether the articles were about the same variety. My s-merge including subsequent single-revert was made in good faith after reliable sources came to light that resolved the uncertainty. As I indicated in my revert, the AfD nom is about having an article on the variety period; otherwise it presumably would've been brought to WP:PM.


 * Notwithstanding other site processes, sometimes moves & merges are the right thing to do. To have the title "Stayman Winesap" only to say the name is incorrect in the body, and given WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply either, would defy logic. Making the newly created "Stayman apple" a redirect then moving the older "Stayman Winesap" article over that redirect to ensure the correct name obviously doesn't make sense either. That's process for its own sake.
 * The reasons we normally keep the older one, i.e content and licensing reasons, were in fact among considerations I took into account. The only substantial content to the older page was added by its author, when he created it. There were two sentences added by a then-new user--one of which was a conjectural interpretation. Once you took away the unverified, poorly sourced and/or wrong, minor/bot and reverted changes, to be honest there wasn't much to merge. The older page had nothing that wasn't covered in a more specific form by better sources presented either in the newer page or in this discussion. I conducted the merge in accordance with WP:SMERGE instructions, ensuring it did conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. --92.30.85.175 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination gives arguments for improving this article by editing (which, incidentally, has happened) rather than for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2010 (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.