Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello. I'm a Japanese Wikipedia (jawp) sysop. In jawp, this article is becoming a issue by the reason of copyvio. (ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/世界重要農業遺産システム, in Japanese.) For example, "Worldwide, specific agricultural ..." from, "For millennia communities" from , "In response to the global trends" from , "are selected based on their..." from. Please determine whether this is a copyvio or not. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable WP:SPAM; no comment on copyvio. Ansh666 06:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And then, after deletion, redirect per PWilkinson below. (My Google seems to be a bit worse than everyone else's Google...) Ansh666 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The standard Google searches strongly suggest that the topic is notable. However, searches on phrase fragments almost always seem to secure hits on either the GIAHS website or FAO documents, from which whole paragraphs or sections have been copied either word-for-word or with minimal alterations. I would regard most of the copied documents as being suitable for use as primary sources, but that is probably beside the point - the likelihood of most or all of the article being COPYVIO is unfortunately very high. PWilkinson (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What Google searches have you been doing? I can't find anything besides related sites, at least in English. Remember that notability requires independent secondary sources. Ansh666 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio and redirect to FAO Following on from my previous comment, the article seems to be largely (and may well be entirely) copied from this publication. I can't find any direct statement of the document's copyright status, but there is no indication that the FAO has licensed its use on terms that would allow us to copy it here. The document itself should probably be regarded as a reliable primary source - one of its authors, Miguel Altieri, is a distinctly notable academic, and the other has a citation record which, while probably not outstanding enough to meet WP:PROF, is still more than decent. So far as the redirect goes, GBooks and GScholar both show a number of sources - and while the detailed ones tend to be more or less primary, a substantial number of independent secondary ones give the FAO project a paragraph or two, quite enough to justify the brief section which (using one of them) I have added to FAO. PWilkinson (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2013 (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.