Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment


 * 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. Will recreate as a redirect as it duplicates an existing article. If anyone is interested in salvaging any of this content to be merged elsewhere it can be userfied for that purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture and the environment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Redundant to nearly every article that it links to, woefully incomplete and unsourced as a result. Overly specific juncture. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, "_______ and the environment" -- you can fill in the blank with almost anything. A section about environmental impact in agriculture certain covers this topic. Yakushima (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The agriculture article does have a section on environmental impact but the topic is broader than impact alone and notable enough for a stand alone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. There are thousands of books with this title or something like it.  The claim that the topic is overly specific is therefore blatantly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: ill-thought-out, unsourced & incomplete WP:CFORK, most obviously of Environmental issues with agriculture -- there is already an article on "something like" "this title". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a content fork. Environmental issues with agriculture is about the environmental issues relating to agriculture whereas Agriculture and the environment is a broader topic that includes the issues and how to mitigate them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnecessary and poorly-sourced/possibly POV sub-stub fork of Environmental issues with agriculture. No harm in a cheap redirect there. -- Kinu t /c  09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything Environmental issues with agriculture is a POV fork of Agriculture. "Environmental issues" implies something negative and therefore open to a POV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "issues" has neither a positive nor a negative connotation.-- Kinu t /c  03:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete where would this fit at Agriculture? Suggests there should be similar articles such as Transportation and the environment or Mining and the environment?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is eminently suitable a link in Agriculture. Also, the two article titles you mention are likely to be created in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   prattle 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly an unnecessary content fork.  Snotty Wong   prattle 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge two articles to whichever one is dominant. Google news and Google book search both show ample results to look through, but if another article exist already, no need to bother. Redirect to Environmental issues with agriculture and merge anything not already there.  The other article seems to have a more appropriate name.   D r e a m Focus  19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of article hierarchy Environmental issues with agriculture would be subservient to Agriculture and the environment and therefore a merge of the former into the latter (leaving a redirect) would be more appropriate. However, I feel they should both exist to give the reader a wide selection of topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't most of the information just the same though? Is there enough unique information in each article for them to exist separately?  Or is there the potential for unique information to be added which would fit in one article but not the other?    D r e a m Focus  11:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable topic for which a large amount of reliably sourced info can be found. It fills a a gap in the range of articles on agriculture and the environment. Have a read of my essay "On filling the gaps" for more info. Also, a similar AfD was done for the Environmental issues with energy article. See the AfD here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. "woefully incomplete and unsourced" are not reasons for an AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is however an aggravating factor to "redundant"/WP:CFORK. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.