Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per request made on talk page by IP here:


 * "With all due respect to the declining admin above, I cannot see any content in this article not already covered in superior detail in the main article. (It is possible that the salient details have been copied into the main article since the original CSD). Anyway, this looks like a high school essay and it is neither necessary nor salvagable. If the CSD is again rejected, can the declining admin list it at AFD. (A redirect would be a good alternative also). 123.208.148.72".

I make no comment on my opinion of whether this article should be kept or deleted.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The topic is notable, and expands on the parent article George Washington Carver (which concentrates on biography). A great deal of material exists with which to write a better article, and the parent article is already fairly lengthy, so that merging is not appropriate. This page should never have been nominated. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To the IP above - I just read the article and I'm sorry, I cannot see what this "expansion' is. The biography of Carver covers his peanut related discoveries in great depth, and there does not seem to be anything expansive added here. This article seems to be padding itself by also trying to cover the history of the peanut, and a mini-biography of Carver, etc. Plus the standard of writing is so awful (not criteria for deletion of course). Manning (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: the parent article has 214 words on peanut discoveries; this article has 903 by my count. It's badly written, but that's no grounds for deletion. The masses of material means the topic is notable, surely. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment response - Your 903 comes from a count of everything under the heading "Peanut discoveries" and not by looking at the actual content. When you strip out the discussion of the agricultural conditions (covered in the main article), the complete text of Carver's promotional pamphlet, and the discussion about tariffs (also covered in the main article), you are left with 239 words regarding his actual inventions. If you analyse the content of that, you'll find that the main article has more information, it is simply more concise. Manning (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - adds nothing not already covered in the primary article. Manning (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Merge to George Washington Carver article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to be a school essay. Already covered in George Washington Carver. Some material is also inaccurate. People ate peanuts long before Carver, as important as he certainly was in many ways. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to suggest a merge, but looking at the two articles I don't see content worth keeping that isn't already in George Washington Carver.  If anyone feels otherwise, I would recommend merging it in before this debate concludes.  Peacock (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not expand the detail in the main article, and so there is no reason for it to exist. When I did the procedural nomination a week ago (IPs can't do it themselves), I was not going to comment, but as it's been relisted, I feel that I should make my thoughts known!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicative of the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 19 July 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.