Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee bean storage

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 keep. Closing this as a keep for now, if ya'll want to propose a merger, please do so on the appropriate article pages. Thanks for your participation! :) Missvain (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee bean storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Prod removed without explanation. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHOWTO Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see where this expands on Coffee#Production (especially since most of the article involves how the beans are made) and I'd tag it as WP:A10 except that it was created a few years ago and wouldn't really qualify for this type of speedy. In any case, I don't particularly see where this merits its own article at this point in time. At the very most some of this could be merged into the main article under a section for "storage" in the production section, if anyone's keen to do that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:NOTHOWTO without explaining how that is relevant or a reason to delete. That policy states "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." and so we see that this is a matter of writing style; how one approaches a topic. This actual topic is notable and so we have plenty of scope to improve the way this topic is written about per our editing policy. Here is a selection of sources:

1. Industrial storage of green Robusta coffee under tropical conditions and its impact on raw material quality and ochratoxin A content
2. Storage research on Kenya arabica coffee
3. Green coffee storage
4. An intermediate category of seed storage behaviour? I. Coffee
5. Storage-related changes of low-boiling volatiles in whole coffee beans
6. An intermediate category of seed storage behaviour? II. Effects of provenance, immaturity, and imbibition on desiccation-tolerance in coffee
7. Storage of green coffee in hermetic packaging injected with CO2
8. Studies on acrylamide levels in roasting, storage and brewing of coffee
9. Returns to storage in coffee and cocoa futures markets
10. Methods of preserving the viability of coffee seed in storage
11. Arabica coffee storage Part II. Review of the problem in Tanganyika
12. The storage of green coffee (Coffea arabica): decrease of viability and changes of potential aroma precursors

Now these are all research papers but there are plenty of books which draw on such material; books such as Food Packaging and Shelf Life; The World Coffee Economy; Handbook of Flavor Characterization; Handbook of Food and Beverage Stability; &c. So, wake up and smell the coffee, please. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern is mostly whether or not it'd really merit a page outside of the pre-existing section in the coffee article about production. There's already a section about storage in there and I don't know how this really expands on that all that much. Most of this article is about how coffee is made, which is already covered quite well. If you do want to create an article about the specific topic of coffee storage then that's fine, but you'd pretty much have to start from scratch. I'm open to you userfying the article and working on it from there, if you want, but this will be a fairly big undertaking and right now the article isn't up to snuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While it's a legitimate editorial concern whether fork subjects like this warrant a standalone article (see WP:PAGEDECIDE), the decision to delete should reflect consensus, and I don't see it. As for your concern about the article not staying in scope and talking about production, it's not an issue of notability and deletion, but of article improvement and cleanup (see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). Given a no consensus or keep decision is reached, I suggest you bring up the issue of scope on the article's talk page. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Coffee bean, a piece which is short enough to be able to absorb this as a new section, I think. Carrite (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Coffee bean is written from a biological point of view. Coffee production would be much more related to this subject. It would also be reasonable to Keep this as its own article, due to the fact that coffee bean storage is not related only to the coffee bean industry. WP:PAGEDECIDE is rather vague on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceosad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Coffee bean pbp 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The proper place to merge to would be Coffee. However, that section already exists. It is WP:SPLIT out of there. More content and better references would be great, but that's no reason to delete a perfectly reasonable article. Relentlessly (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The style of the article is entirely descriptive and not imperative. I don't understand Tokyogirl79's comment "most of the article involves how the beans are made". If this is so (it isn't, is it?) is that a problem? Merging to Coffee Bean would be inappropriate as Ceosad says. Coffee or Coffee production would be better but these are now linking to this article as the main one on the topic and this seems rather suitable to me. Yes, some wise editorialising would be good on these articles but AFD is not a good venue for achieving that. The topic is notable and so the article should be kept. Thincat (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The topic passes WP:N. A secondary choice would be to merge to Coffee bean. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 14 February 2015 (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.