Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardening journal

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Gardening journal}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gardening_journal Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gardening journal}})

Unsourced for 12 years and not evident that there are multiple reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, no more notable than the concept of journaling for any other hobby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep It is very evident that there are multiple independent sources. Here's a couple, for example: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/11522519/Best-apps-to-keep-your-gardening-journal-up-to-date.html Daily Telegraph]; [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RCYS-rbPMDgC The Journal as Art]. Andrew D. (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, if not kept, at the very least a merge/redirect to Diary#Other forms of diaries should be made. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree a merge as suggested by Coolabahapple seems sensible. We don’t have articles for Birdwatching journal or Trainspotting diary, which would likewise be non-substantive in my view. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)M

::*Comment. {{re|Mccapra}} {{re|Coolabahapple}} I have made the entry for Gardening Journal in Diary#Other forms of diaries so that the Redirect can be executed (unreferenced of course, as there are no suitable references in the article). However, at least it will resolve this. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

:::*thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is over 13 years old and effectively unreferenced. It is a WP:TNT case with various disjointed and trivial content; as well as assertions about the most famous keepers of gardening journals that are also unsubstantiated by independent high quality RS. (and are also probably WP:OR). It is a small junk article. TNT it now, and if someone returns to write a decent WP article on "gardening journals" then we can review that. Nothing here worth keeping, and if I started editing this article to remove unreferenced claims, it would be blank. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

:* WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so it's this !vote which is junk. WP:V only requires sources for controversial matters or quotations and the material in the current draft is neither. If someone wants to adds sources to the current draft then this is easily done. For example, I shall demonstrate by adding a source for the famous case of Thomas Jefferson. Deletion would not assist such improvement; it would be quite disruptive and discouraging. Our actual policy, WP:IMPERFECT makes this quite clear, "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

::*Comment. This article is not "imperfect" – it is junk (and unreferenced junk). You can't add sources to this text it because it would be OR (Thomas Jefferson was famous, but there is no evidence that his Gardening Journal was famous). That is how bad a shape this article is in. WP:TNT is a perfectly valid argument at AfD (as it WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE). AfD often produces these surreal cases where something that has been ignored for a decade gets a reference slapped on it to drag to "no consensus", when everybody knows that it won't be touched for another 10 years, at which time it will hit AfD again. That is the benefit of WP:TNT; let it die in peace. There is nothing here but bits of junk (and OR). Britishfinance (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.