Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Vetter (farmer)


 * 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. Consensus is that the problems in the article can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

David Vetter (farmer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is promotional anfd non-notable.

The references are mostly local notices, and promotional interviews where he says what he pleases-- een the LA Times feature is  a rewritten promotional  interview, not a true news story. The material is over-personal, in the typical PR fashion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Sustained GNG coverage over 24+ years in newspapers, books, magazine, video and film. The OPs conclusion this is all the result of self-promotion is not well supported. Each source would need to be examined to explain why it is not reliable - no doubt some fraction are unreliable, but that doesn't make the entire article non-notable. (I have cleaned up some sources and added another). -- Green  C  19:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Using the newspaper.com archives I see a lot of mentions of it in a lot of places over many years.  He is quoted often as an authority of the subject of organic farming.  He is the subject of the documentary "Dreaming of a vetter world".   D r e a m Focus  23:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Organic farming in the United States. I looked over the references in the article and all they are is blog posts, stories about the documentary, or on other things about organic farming that only mention him in passing. There's no source that is an in-depth reliable discussion of him or his life though. That said, I think a solid case could be made for an article on the documentary about him, since there's obviously sources about it, but that doesn't mean he deserves a separate article himself. Let alone that what little is knowing about him or what he did from the few reliable sources there are can't just be mentioned in the documentaries article instead of this one. In the meantime though, there is not enough good, usable sources for an article solely about him. Not every single that had a documentary made about them warrants an individual article "because documentary." I think the salvageable content would be a good addition to Organic farming in the United States though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As GreenC stated, there has been sustained GNG coverage for over 20 years. The film about him produced by noted film industry people tops it off. The article does need some work in both copy editing and sourcing. I expect there are many more sources out there covering him and his work in the 1970s - 1990s which might not be easily accessible via google. Thriley (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have nothing to say on notability of the subject, since the sources seem to be rather hit and miss. Though I also have a bias against the subject, so it's better if I abstain. But I just wanted to note that, if kept, there needs to be some work and focus on making sure any agricultural and scientific claims are kept away from pseudoscience. For example, the Early life section right now presents Vetter's claims on pesticides as if they are true (and from an incredibly shoddy source used at that), when they are very much not. Vetter is a well known pseudoscience pusher in the scientific community, so writing in the article needs to be careful and meet neutrality of writing and reliability of sourcing standards. Silver  seren C 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Silver. I made this page after reading about Vetter’s influence on Fred Kirschenmann, someone you might also have qualms with. As these older organic farmers age and die and the “organic movement” shifts in ideology, I think it is important to document them encyclopedically. I remember you tried to find some major written criticism of Vetter and were unable to find any then. Could you check again? This page definitely needs some improvement to shift it away from being interpreted as a fan page. A nice criticism section would be good. Thriley (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just difficult for Vetter in particular because of the name commonality with the "bubble boy" David Vetter. Though, at the same time, it really does feel like it comes down to that Vetter hasn't received mainstream coverage outside of niche organic agriculture sources. The best there is from what i'm seeing is Nebraska news sources, which would be local coverage. He never got big enough for science skepticism sites to cover him. Silver  seren C 23:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised how little press the documentary got with the producers it had. It’s the kind of film that would have been in some kind of “farmer in the heartland” NY Times story. Thriley (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Clearly a noteable Farmer per Dream. An important contributor to the organic & sustainable farming movement. I don't agree the article is promotional or warrants an advert tag. It already included reasonable criticism, such as " He was considered strange by his neighbors for his beliefs and farming practices".  Silver seren made a good point about non mainstream views on pesticides being presented in the encyclopedia's voice,  but for me editor Thriley nicely addressed with this edit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone's neighbors considering them wierd really does it when it comes to making an article neutral and balanced. Especially in this case because the critism isn't that he was an odd guy. Its that made a bunch of pseudoscientific claims. Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no bunch of pseudoscientific claims, or at least not in the article. Sorry if my previous vote implied that the views pesticides can kill wildlife & harm soil are not mainstream. They are. (Though arguably various specific brands dont cause long term harm if used carefully.) The problem was more relating to the context re the questioning of pesticides' value. (Not that there is any harm in questioning such things in and of itself.) Anyhow, for me editor Thriley has already resolved the issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * His claims were that they didn't improve yields and he also ignored high pesticide use in organic farming because they were "natural" pesticides, which have actually been found to be more damaging to the environment. Those were the claims he made that were not backed up by science, not to mention that proper use of pest specific pesticides aren't harmful for the environment or wildlife. One also has to consider the plants themselves and the dozens of carcinogenic pesticides they naturally produce, which can actually have breeding mutations that make them dangerous, such as the Lenape potato. Not to mention that the reference used is both primary and makes further non-scientific claims. Silver  seren C 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All righty. The claim currently there is that in his experience they don't make yields "much higher" - which obviously could be true depending on specifics. I don't doubt he's made several non mainstream claims that aren't in the article. But this is no reason to delete – if it was, we'd have to destroy countless biographies on A-list grade high achieving people. If you feel strongly that the 'Organic & Non-GMO' source should be removed, why not be bold, editor Thriley seems most collegial and quite possibly won't mind. Without disagreeing with your other points, I dont find them convincing as a reason to delete. But maybe Im missing something. Per the fact Ive seen you around for over 10 years and consider you an outstanding editor, I'll take it on faith this is the case. So downgrading my vote & I wont take further part in this AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thriley and I are friends, actually, but I am abstaining from voting or being involved in the article proper since I work with plants and live in Nebraska, so Vetter is a well known antagonistic figure in university science here. And I don't want my bias to be involved with him as the subject. I was honestly surprised there wasn't more big name reliable source coverage of him, since Thriley did ask me to check around before and, even considering the bubble boy name conflict difficulty, there really wasn't much. Outside of organic farming specific websites, I only found two articles in Nebraska newspapers. His infamy in the scientific agricultural community seemingly hasn't translated into actual news coverage, for some reason. It's kind of weird, to be honest. Other contemporaries of his that are at the same level of notoriety have received a much larger amount of coverage. Silver  seren C 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the lack of sources is due to his notoriety. Perhaps Nebraska newspapers don’t want to wade into it at all. Compare Vetter’s coverage to Vermont dairy farmer Jack Lazor whose article I created after his death. The media industry in Vermont is much friendlier to organic growers as it is pretty much the only growth field in agriculture in the state and of course many Vermont residents are skeptical of modern farming methods. Thriley (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it may also be that Vetter deliberately does not seek press unlike some figures in the organic industry. Thriley (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 18 May 2021 (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.