Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon plum

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon plum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've done my damnedest to find any reliable sources about this type of plum, and I haven't been able to find anything substantive and reliable, no matter what I add to the search. The lengthiest source I found was The Six Pillars of Holistic Nutrition, which I wouldn't consider an exceptionally reliable source. There's also a scant paragraph in this local-interest article about fruit to try. Everything else is basically name-drops on lists.

I tried to look under "Inca plum", because the article suggests they might be one and the same, but again I mostly found list entries and commercial websites. The Inca plum exists on the Slow Food Ark of Taste, but doesn't say anything about also being called the lemon plum, so I can't assume they're one and the same.

Ultimately, even if they are, we have a) an entry in a book about holistic nutrition, b) a scant paragraph in a local-interest story, and c) a single-paragraph entry in a database that we can't even be sure is about the same fruit.

It's not enough for an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this is suspiciously hard to find. I.e., nothing at all on Scholar, one apparent and a few possible-verging-on-doutbful mentions in books. If there was a scientific name to go with the plant that would help (actually it would suffice as a notable topic on its own), but I can't find anything like that. Too little coverage to sustain an article. Add: and both references given in the article are worthless/inapplicable :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this source [1] and quite a lot of photo sources that gives it a PLU code of 4441 and 4442 according to the size. I don't know if this is enough to suggest that it should pass notability. This seems to have nothing to do with the 2 plants mentioned at Yellow plum though. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; sketchy as it is, best source so far. Why don't these people note their data sources, argh |p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple more sources, starting with image searches. These are both from commercial fruit sellers, but at least show the beast is around and confirm some of the info: [2][3] I dunno... getting there? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources right now to sustain an article. Should more reliable sources appear in the future, the article could of course be recreated. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2018 (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.