Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walnut Marketing Board


 * 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. Notable agency; sources added have added to the keep vote weight.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Walnut Marketing Board

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Longterm WP:GNG tags, unable to find RS that speifcally covers the topic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC) *Delete. The subject is certainly notable enough, as it's part of the syndicalist arrangements which keep food prices high in the U.S., but the article is a reprint of a statement at the Board's website. (Which is probably a copyvio.) When someone cares enough to dig into resources like this book, there can be an article. Argyriou (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can only find sources verifying it has been involved in trade fairs etc but no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant enough coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent source &mdash; well done. Your !vote is puzzling though.  Me, I care enough but don't like being taken advantage of.  Rather than work on this article, I'm going to write Too many chiefs and not enough Indians instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I !voted as I did because when the entire article is a copyvio, it's better to nuke it and start over. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The nuking and starting over has already been done, demonstrating that article deletion isn't a necessary part of that process. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the subject is definitely notable, and now there is now a real article which is not a copyvio. Argyriou (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable agency of the US Federal government. Note that it was formerly known as the Walnut Control Board. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "a notable agency"? It has to meet WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find the assertions above that editors are unable find sources puzzling. All you have to do is click on the word "books" that is right there in the nomination and you'll find 282 sources, the very first of which contains significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please evaluate the current article - refs added, copyvio fixed. Meets WP:CORP by virtue of more-than-passing mentions by independent sources.It is discussed in these books, , and in this paper published by Cornell  and this journal . Under its various names,  "Walnut Control Board", 59 GNews archives hits ; "Walnut Marketing Board" 498 Gnews hits;; "California Walnut Board", 57 Gnews hits . Depth of coverage is no problem using all the .gov sites. Novickas (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. This is one of the dozens of similar organizations created during the New Deal. Figureofnine (talk) 15:31, 6 October 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.