Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair trade coffee


 * 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. (non-admin closure) → B  music  ian  02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair trade coffee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Essay, rant, whatever you want to call it — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect for Crisco 1492, I'm afraid that this AfD has no prospect of success and should be closed. I agree that this is an egregious failure of WP:NPOV that lies somewhere between an essay and a rant, but even if we agree to remove the content (which seems virtually certain), it's still a plausible search term that should be redirected to Fair trade.  A redirect also means that if anyone wants to reuse any of the references from this... piece... in Fair trade, then they will be available in the history.  I suggest withdrawing the AfD and simply implementing the redirect.— S Marshall  T/C 11:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The same probably applies to Fair trade debate. Dricherby (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is a speedy redirect, I have no issue with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ̶R̶e̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶  to Fair trade as suggested above - Blatant violation of NPOV (the lead sentence explains that it's giving one side of an argument) and therefore against WP:NPOV.-- Stv Fett erly  (Edits)  12:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest not basing your entire deletion rationale for three years' worth of editing history on . (The editor probably didn't know about cleanup templates.) Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert - My mistake, I should have checked the history further. The original article is much better.  -- Stv  Fett erly  (Edits)  17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that everyone in this discussion go and read some of the old revisions of this article, such as . None of the aforementioned rationales apply to what's in this article's history, before it was  by  a month ago.  Always check an article's history before nominating it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert to old revision and Keep as a notable topic gone astray (per Uncle G). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert and keep. It's not clear to me that Fair trade coffee needs a specific article (there's no Fair trade tea, for example) but that seems a minor issue. Dricherby (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, and correct neutral point-of-view problems: The version of the article at the time it was nominated here had been changed to being solely criticisms of Fair trade coffee, rather than comprehensive coverage of the entire topic itself. Criticism should be in a criticism section of the article. This topic easily passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added in information to the article from previous versions, and additional information regarding the criticism of Fair trade coffee that was in the version of the article at the time it was nominated for deletion here has been moved to the article's Criticism section. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but improve. The topic of fair trade coffee -- and the controversy over fair trade certification for coffee -- is indeed a major component of the broader topics of fair trade certification and fair trade debate, but it is by itself large enough and distinct enough to be [{WP:N|notable]] and to deserve coverage independent of the broader topics. See, for example, this November 2011 New York Times article about disputes regarding who can call themselves "Fair Trade" with respect to coffee. Yes, the current article is mostly a POV-laden essay, but it can be improved by the injection of some more objective writing. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that Northamerica1000 has been hard at work. Is anyone uninvolved willing to round this off with a snow close?  I see no reason for a seven-day discussion.— S Marshall  T/C 16:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is notable. Obviously, have to make it NPOV, etc, but the topic seems like it warrants a page.JoelWhy (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Coffee is one of the first, and most important, of all fair trade products, definitely deserves its own article. any problem with content can be resolved, up to and including reduction to a stub (i havent reviewed it in detail), but thats not an issue for AFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article requires some clean-up, but there are plenty of reliable sources. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:23, 31 May 2012 (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.