Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana powder

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The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn, with no "delete" recommendations left outstanding. Thanks to the editors who sourced and expanded the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banana powder

Delete Not remotely significant enough to justify an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn - see below. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wtf? If it actually included info such as the invention of the stuff, its development over time and the impact of banana powder on the milk industry then it would be a different story. But this is "banana powder exists, the end" (I paraphrase). -- role^player 15:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do indeed paraphrase, and somewhat erroneously to boot. We call such things stubs, and they develop over time. Many articles have started as stubs. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do RC patrol, and I am constantly telling new users, "just because your film/band/website exists, doesn't mean it's automatically article-worthy". Notability has not been established in the article, therefore it should be deleted. If we can't be consistent with our policies why have policies in the first place? -- role^player 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have consistent policies here. You simply don't understand them properly. The speedy deletion criterion, as mentioned below, is specific, and does not apply to all articles in general. Go and read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 again. There's a reason, including a number of high-profile polls and discussions, that the various words are in boldface.
      Notability is the existence of multiple independent published works by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy providing in depth coverage of a subject. If you're going to opine at AFD in any meaningful way, you have to put in the effort to determine that for each case, as Cullen328 has below. That's what the proper application of Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires. Dealing with notability correctly at AFD is not simply a case of reading the article alone and providing a subjective "It seems notable/not-notable to me." opinion. One must do the legwork and determine whether a subject actually is or is not objectively notable. This is the way that it's been all along. This is why our banana article wasn't deleted.
      So use the handy little tool ⇗ and do that legwork. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decision changed to keep following rewrite. -- role^player 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many book references, for example: The newer nutrition in pediatric practice, Isaac Newton Kugelmass, J.B. Lippincott company, 1940. This book describes banana powder in some detail on page 336, and mentions it many times throughout the text. Also, Handbook of Food Products Manufacturing: Principles, Bakery, Beverages, by Yiu H. Hui, Stephanie Clark, Wiley Interscience, 2007. Detailed description of banana powder on page 873, and several other mentions in the book. There are many more book and journal references easily available online. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mighty ~~oaks~~articles, from tiny ~~acorns~~stubs have grown. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You say stub, I say that notability isn't demonstrated. As it stands, nothing more than the existence is demonstrated.Keep: In light of the improvements, changing my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability not being demonstrated is a speedy deletion criterion that is specific to people, organizations, and WWW sites. It's not a reason for deletion via AFD in deletion policy, nor does it apply even as a speedy deletion criterion to a foodstuff. Your application of deletion policy is erroneous, and your understanding of article development is flawed. I suggest a quick look at how our "banana" article itself first started out to help remedy the latter. And when you've done that, go and re-read what Cullen328 cites above. Xe has even helpfully given the exact page numbers. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read it how you want G. I can't remember the last time I saw you think an article needed deleted. We have different views about what should be deleted and what amount of responsibility some lazy ass author should exercise before putting an article into live space. So save your breath with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a question of different views. You have an understanding of deletion policy that is wrong, and you apply it wrongly. Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Niteshift, IMHO your statements there border very closely on assuming bad faith. When it comes to questions of notability, look it up and, if need be, improve the article instead of slapping delete tags on it. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - First off, I didn't slap any tag on anything. Second, you can call it bad faith all you want. I frankly don't give a damn. Uncle G tends to think everything is notable. And I disagree frequently. Since the comment wasn't directed to you, your opinion of what I said to him really doesn't matter to me. Lastly, I shouldn't have to go look for stuff to see that a topic is notable. The author should do a little work and do that themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Niteshift, please note that the original article was the first contribution by a new editor. To call that person a "lazy ass author" seems to go against assuming good faith, and comes pretty darn close to biting the newcomer. Why not welcome a new editor who identified a notable topic, and kicked it off? As the editor who first recommended "Keep" and produced a couple of references, I am amazed at the depth and passion of the debate that's followed. Thanks to all. Cullen328 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't about BITE, it's about the general practice, by both new and established editors) of throwing up some unsourced/undersourced sentences, calling it an article and then expecting other to source and expand it for you. There are plenty of prompts and links to policies to tell people, first-timer or not, to have sources and to demonstrate notability. If they choose to ignore them, then I feel perfectly fine with calling them lazy. In this case, I didn't even bother to see if the author was a first-timer or not because it really didn't matter. But you say "why not welcome the notable topic". You missed the point. The onus to demonstrate notability should be on the author. I shouldn't have to go looking around to see if it is or not. Yes, I've read WP:BEFORE, so don't give me a useless link to it. It's a policy that is being abused by....wait for it....lazy-ass editors far too often. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the 7th point down on the deletion policy under reasons to delete an article is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". You must have missed it. SnottyWong ^spout 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You clearly don't understand policy, either. Failing to satisfy the notability criteria is not the same as "notability is not demonstrated". If you've been thinking like that all of this time, you've been getting AFD wrong, too, and not putting deletion policy into practice as intended. Please learn what deletion policy actually is, and the difference between speedy deletion of articles on people, organizations and WWW sites that fail to make a credible assertion of notability and deletion (of articles on subjects that are not people, organizations, nor WWW sites) for not actually being notable. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article, along with expanding it a significant amount. I feel that the subject is extremely notable and useful in the medical world, as noted in the article. Silver seren^C 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an article which fails to meet the relevant notability guideline as there are hundreds of scholarly sources which discuss it in detail. The article should be kept in accordance with our editing policy and the nominator should please observe the deletion process more carefully. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search alone would've shown it was a notable topic. Many new articles start off as stubs, and trying to delete a one day old article is always the wrong thing to do. Dream Focus 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love wikipedia, a new editor comes along and with one edit inspires a bit of collaboration. This article had a rocky start but is clearly notable. Plenty of sources now in place, editors !voting delete may wish to reconsider. Bigger digger (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References now in place demonstrate notability. What a fun little article! Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to banana. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific reason? Silver seren^C 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find it difficult to believe the nom followed WP:BEFORE and even did a cursory search of this topic as it took me only a few seconds to find non-trivial secondary coverage.[1][2][3]. I know from starting AfDs that setting them up takes longer than my search on this topic. Go ahead the throw the "you're assuming bad faith!" charge at me. I would be happy if this AfD was investigated and perhaps used as an example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be an absolute rule.--Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure it's bad faith, per se, as opposed to something I call "Assuming Negative Notability" (although it may be a subset of ABF), which I'm seeing distressingly often at AfD. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like the essay. --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle makes starting an AFD quite simple - much easier than searching for sources, reviewing the article's history or starting a discussion on the talk page. Naive editors naturally follow the path of least resistance and do what seems easiest when they encounter a difficulty or problem. AFDs should now perhaps require a second editor to validate the need for formal discussion. This might be done in a similar way to prod endorsement which is done using the {{prod-2}} template. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing more and more bad things about Twinkle lately. Usually, it is more established users that utilize it, for the most part, but it just seems to bring a lot of them trouble because they end up doing bad things with it (whether they happen to be mistakes or not). I can understand the use of it for vandalism, but I feel that having people do things manually would work a lot better. Mechanizing things to a button click, in any situation, whether it be Wikipedia or anything in real life, just seems to be asking for trouble in my opinion. Silver seren^C 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this snowed perhaps? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per the massive improvements made since nomination, and delete voters changing their opinions. What was once three meager sentences[4] has become a well-sourced, informative, and encyclopedic article. Special kudos to User:Silver seren and to those others who contributed to this article's expansion and improvement since the nomination... User:Pablo X, User:Uncle G, User:Bongomatic, and User:Bigger digger. Great job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am bewildered by the reasoning which Uncle G has repeatedly used in slightly different forms, but is summed up clearly in his statement "Notability not being demonstrated is a speedy deletion criterion that is specific to people, organizations, and WWW sites. It's not a reason for deletion via AFD in deletion policy..." This is a total misunderstanding. All subjects require notability to be demonstrated in order to justify the existence of an article on them. The speedy deletion criterion which Uncle G no doubt has in mind (A7) is a different matter. It says that certain classes of articles (e.g. those on people, organisations...) can be speedily deleted if they do not indicate "importance or significance", which the criterion explicitly states is not the same as "notability". Colonel Warden says that I should "observe the deletion process more carefully", but does not state in what way I failed to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles do indeed require notability, but just because it is not demonstrated does not mean the article should be deleted. That's why there's {{notability}}. That's the point of WP:IMPROVE, and why WP:BEFORE, at point 9, states Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. If that step had been followed sources could have been found. Without meaning to put words in Uncle G's mouth, the speedy discussion refers to User:Roleplayer stating "Notability has not been established in the article, therefore it should be deleted", which is only relevant in A7 cases. Bigger digger (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction Personally I still do not think that this topic warrants a whole article to itself, but the article has been substantially improved, "delete" people have changed their minds, and there are now many references in the article, so clearly it is going to be kept. Consequently I am willing to withdraw my nomination. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.