Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues in American commodity farming

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in American commodity farming

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

Completely unfocused essay. Topic is too specific, sources are too vague to verify, and the article doesn't seem to be something on which a coherent article can be formed. If this is a notable topic after all, then WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I would not say it is is unfocused. Google search for "commodity farming" quickly shows quite a few text which discus precisely the article subject: problems associated with commodity farming. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: If there is content worth keeping, why not just merge it to commodity farming? "Issues" is too vague a term, and leads to slapdash examplefarming (pardon the pun). And oh wait, commodity farming doesn't have an article either! Is this even a thing? Why not make a parent article first, instead of a random collection of "issues"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever you say, colleague, but this is not the topic of AfD. The collection is not "random" and issues discussed are real and severe, i.e., of encyclopedic value. I agree the text is essayish and probably may be split into subtopics. For example "Environmental effects" section is hardly limited to "American" and will nicely go into Environmental impact of agriculture. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the essay/OR-like content, commodity is redundant in the title (farmed crops are commodities), which is partly why TenPoundHammer didn't find an article for commodity farming. It's not a useful redirect/merge in addition to not being a likely search term. Environmental impact of agriculture already covers most of these ideas attempted here, and the author likely didn't know about Intensive crop farming. Any topics remaining are too broad of hand waving to justify keeping for content elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I am often persuaded by the usefulness of invoking WP:TNT in articles where just so much is wrong. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2018 (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.