Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuscan melon

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 redirect‎ to Cantaloupe#Types. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan melon

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT, proprietary cultivar grown and sold by a single grower. References are not reliable, naturesproduce.com and specialtyproduce.com appear to be food distributors offering information about the products they sell in turn, and clovegarden.com appears to be a one-person blog. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Cantalope#Types per nom (promotional, fails GNG, no reliable sources). GoldRomean (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ From what I remember about melon sales at Southern California farmer's markets, tuscan melons are a group of cultivars more than a specific brand, though it looks like "Tuscan Style" is a trademark. I agree the article needs to be updated as it is promotional. Here is an agricultural study that includes various types of tuscan melon: [1]. A deeper look is probably needed to get past the promotional stuff.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something here. The tables in that study indicate that Tuscan is in fact a category of melon cultivars. That being said, that's not how the article or current references treat the topic, instead being about one specific marketed cultivar, and the article would need to be entirely rewritten from new sources to be about that group. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As I have tried to do more research, I'm not finding much that covers Tuscan melons/cantaloupes in detail, so this may be better off as a redirect. Cantaloupe seems like the best target as it already has blurbs about various classes of melon and tuscan melons could be easily added. Right now I'm not sure if "tuscan" melons are different from the "charentais" european melons that are already listed on cantaloupe.

This info from bayer seeds is the best I have found that describes how Tuscan varieties differ the more traditional varieties sold in the US:

https://www.vegetables.bayer.com/ca/en-ca/resources/agronomic-spotlights/melon-types.html

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in cookbooks [2] with coverage in Gscholar, [3], [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cantaloupe#Types: ~~Delete~~ Sources provided by Oaktree b are not sigcov, they are mere mentions. From the two Gscholar links, the only info I could add to the article is "The Wrangler variety is an example of a Tuscan melon". The cookbook link only gives a one sentence description of the appearance, also not sigcov. As mentioned above, other links including Bayer are not independent. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Changed to redirect per Anonrfjwhuikdzz. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect redirect to Cantaloupe for unreliable sources JGBlue1509 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added information about Tuscan melons at Cantaloupe#Types. To those of you voting delete or keep, are you comfortable with a redirect to the updated cantaloupe page instead? @Rollinginhisgrave @A412 @GoldRomean @User:Oaktree b

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good redirect target to me. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. GoldRomean (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the redirect is ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good. JGBlue1509 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2025 (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.