Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed-counting machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Nominator withdrawal, no deletion contributions (per WP:CSK). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seed-counting machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This orphan article has no citations, and is mainly used as a repository for external links to seed-packing equipment manufacturer websites. I haven't been able to locate another article which would appropriately house this content (for a merge) as there seems to be no article mentioning seed-counting or seed-packages. Nor is there any article which would even link to this article in their See also section. Though there is the article Seed, it doesn't really go into the subject of commercial packaging and selling. Doesn't look salvageable at this point. Platonk (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I withdraw my nomination since a group of 5 editors has effectively TNTed the old article and rebuilt it over the last 24 hours; a wonderful effort and a great result. Anyone who wants to close this AfD with a speedy keep, go right ahead. Platonk (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for getting pages fixed up to keep. Please go ahead and make your improvements (nice pic you already added) and we'll see if we can get this to 'notability' standards. I suspect that Wikipedia needs more coverage of the commercial seed industry. I was unable to find any. Platonk (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For information about seeds in an encyclopedic format, see The Encyclopedia of Seeds. It has 828 pages and so seems quite comprehensive. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This makes my back hurt. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're pretty easy to use. The hardest part is keeping up with the horse(s) while walking over freshly turned ground. Platonk (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done integrated into history. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen: Hey! Platonk (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I missed some of those edits. I certainly thank all of those editors who have contributed to the improvement of the article. And I commend the original AFD nominator for having the courage to withdraw the nomination. That is rare beavior. These AFD conversations become needlessly and negatively positional. Article improvement is a legitimate goal. Thank you for permitting me to clarify what I should have said in the first place. I'm sorry for my remark. 7&6=thirteen () 21:27, 28 October 2021 (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.