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.
I've declined that speedy. It is not clear that this article is violating copyright, as it has been on here, essentially in its current state, for over three years. Wikipedia articles are frequently and legitimately copied into other web pages under creative commons rights. CatfishJim and the soapdish12:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it wouldn't be legitimate, as there is no attribution. However, whether it is legitimate is not the point: what matters is whether it happened. The ultimate source is difficult to determine, as it appears on various web sites. http://pakmangoes.multancity.com/typesofmangoes.htm seems likely. However, it is part of a list of information in uniform style on various varieties. A few of the entries on the list appear in Wikipedia articles, most don't. Those that do have been placed here by different editors at different times. Thus we have two possibilities: (1) Different Wikipedia editors at different times have independently written articles about varieties of mangoes. They have each written their articles in the same format and style. They have each used technical botanical terminology in the same way, despite not having an editing history which indicates a knowledge of botany. Someone else has collected these together, and supplemented them with more, in the same uniform style, and posted them elsewhere. (2) Someone with botanical knowledge produced a uniform list of varieties, all in the same style. A couple of Wikipedia editors have copied a couple of the entries in the list to articles. I know which of those two possibilities I think is more likely, by a long way. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually certainly a copyright infringement. (In my opinion worth a speedy deletion, but in deference to Catfish Jim, I will leave it for now.) Even if it isn't, the article has no substantial content, and amounts to little more than a dictionary definition.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have replaced all text previously suspected as violating copyright. It is now also more than a simple description, backed up with several reliable sources. CatfishJim and the soapdish21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article now satisfies WP:GNG criteria. Article should be moved to Banganapalli mango, as that is the name by which it is more commonly referred to and reflects its origin. CatfishJim and the soapdish12:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catfish Jim. Nice work on cleaning it up. It is certainly notable and is no longer a copyright violation. Rkitko (talk)02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—and kudos to Catfish Jim for sourcing it. There are many more sources which can be added. A few recent ones from newsbank (these are from the first 50 hits, out of 119, on banganapalli+mango. Many are mere mentions, but these are much more. There are others, but this seems like enough):
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.