Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agricultural theme park (2nd nomination)

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 Agritourism. Kurykh (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural theme park

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

The article is clearly written as an advertisement, as both this article and its related James Kurian article were created by and have been largely edited by User:Superbrain.jr. Neither this article or the other one are notable in my opinion, so I suggest they be deleted. CoolieCoolster (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my argument at the previous AFD. And as mere WP:PROMO for the resort http://mangomeadows.in/, for which I cannot establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my comment from the Feb. 2016 AFD:"*Delete as pure self promotion by use of a term that has not gained currency, acquired meaning, or spurred emulation. Note, however, that a handful of promoters have called their projects "agricultural theme parks" one in California [1] in 1998; another in Costa Rica [2], one being promoted in Korea now [3]. Note also that Farm museums exist, as do U-Pick and Pick-Your-Own (PYO) Farms, many with playgrounds and picnic tables, but they are not this (nor is Knott's Berry Farm.) In sum, Agricultural theme parks may catch on, just, it hasn't yet.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a gNews search on "Agricultural theme park" [4]. 10 hits. The first hit is about the new theme park that Eataly is building. This was a BIG story in the foodie universe when it was announced last year, note, however, that that NY1 appears to be the only news outlet that used the phrase "agricultural theme park". The other 17,000 hits [5] used phrases like "Italian Food Theme Park" and "Gourmet Theme Park," "Culinary Destination," and "Disney World for Food Lovers." This term/phrase is simply not in significant use, circulation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a place nearby farms where consumers can directly buy farm products may possibly be notable, but such a thing is definitely not widely known as an "Agricultural Theme Park", and "James Kurian" most definitely did not invent the concept of such a place. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the present article needs work, and incorrect information such as attributing the concept to James Kurian needs to be removed. But my analysis indicated the term has "caught on" and the concept is notable. Most of the following use the term "agricultural theme park", some may use "farm theme park" or something similar.
[6] one in Korea
[7] one in India
[8] New York Times article The Farm as Theme Park
[9] news article on the one in India
[10] talks about parks in Costa Rica and Mexico
[11] LA Times article about proposed park in CA
[12] from Korea
[13] from Korea
[14] Korean tourism site that uses the term in video and writing
[15] article about AG theme parks in Japan
[16] another article on Japan
[17] from China
[18] article about the one in Indian
[19] BusinessKorea news article from 1/16/17.

The current article is too promotional towards "Mango Meadows" and needs significant cleanup. But there is notability. MB 04:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Corn maze is a thing, a defined thing. "agricultural theme park," as far as I can tell, is not. We need not only usage (by no means established by the list above since many of those articles do not use this phrase, and are about a sundry variety of farm-related promotions) we need a degree of coherence in the term's meaning, and some sources that define it as a term for a type of attraction, as per WP:NEO. If someone wants to argue that the era of the Agricultural Theme Park is upon us in the form of a well-soruced WP:HEYMANN, I'm all ears.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agritourism. In looking for sources on this subject I discovered that the notable concept is "agritainment", more or less the same subject with many more available sources. Searching for that term on Wikipedia, I see it redirects to agritourism, another term frequently covered with agritainment. It may be that agritainment could sustain a separate article, but given the pervasive promotional content in this article I think it makes the most sense to redirect to a very similar concept rather than attempt to WP:TNT a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with Redirecting the topic to Agritourism. What I do not see is that there is anything in the existing article that merits merging - as it stands, it is WP:PROMO for the non-notable Mango meadows Agricultural Theme Park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing a redirect without merging any of the information from this article into the other one would be a good solution. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (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.