Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries with organic agriculture regulation


 * 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

List of countries with organic agriculture regulation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced linkfarm. ^demon[omg plz] 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is neither unsourced nor a linkfarm and is entirely encyclopedic; declared sources are stated in the footer of each table, and a link to an official government website is provided whenever possible.  The article was originally created by  and added to Organic food, but due to its length, was split out, and now resides as a link below Organic_food.  Does the article need some cleanup, including the conversion of cited sources and external links to inline refs?  Sure.  Certainly not a reason to delete. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it's a list, so we can excuse the lack of encyclopedic sysnthes of the topic, but the sourcing that is present demonstrates that it is a verifyable topic. This data seems likely to be used to provide RS data for existing articles on the implementation of standards for organic farming (a topic meeting WP:N), which makes it encyclopedic IMHO. Pete.Hurd 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per above comments. Completely disagree with both reasons for nomination.  It isn't trying to present itself as an article, hence the title "List of...".  - Rjd0060 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. Looked as though it should be a deletable article but content seems notable for a list.  Should be cleaned up with much more context and possibly could be too long. MLA 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Delete Not that organic farming isn't worthy of mention, but this is a beautifully wrapped package of nothing. The information in this voluminous, impressive looking table could be summed up in a single paragraph in organic farming.  I learned that there are some countries where the regulations are "fully implemented".  There are some countries where the regulations are "not fully implemented".   That's all.  Mandsford 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this the wrong way, but there was a time on Wikipedia, years before you arrived, when editors would actually contribute to and expand articles, not delete them. I know it sounds strange, but I was there. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How noble of you. There are times when I try to "improve" an article to keep it from being deleted.  In this case, my version of a rewrite would be more of an insult to the author than would a deletion, if that's how this comes out.  If I were to "be bold" and to implement my idea (which is to scrap the table and turn it into a narrative of the fully and not-fully nations), I would be destroying the author's mode of presentation.  And if I were the author, I'd me angrier at one person doing a rewrite than I would at a deletion by a group.  I suppose that you could "expand" the article by looking up stats for 110 nations.  Knock yourself out. Mandsford 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All kidding aside, you will notice that I didn't vote keep or delete. The only reason this article exists is because I saved the work of an anonymous contributor who took the time to try to add information to the encyclopedia, only to have his/her work deleted by other editors.  I took the approach of preserving the data and placing it in a new article.  I think the article has potential for expansion, and I find it interesting to compare the standards around the world.  The narrative approach works for a small set of data (best for summary style) and this is actually achieved in part, in Organic_certification.  But certification is only one aspect of the regulatory data, and the presentation of additional information in list format allows one to quickly compare related sets, such as the breakdown of the percentage of organic ingredients that certification entails, and other facts and statistics.  Ironically, this would have the benefit of merging facts and statistics from the organic food, farming, and certification articles, into a more cohesive presentation; at the moment, this data appears all over the place, and cannot be easily viewed on one screen.  The list allows one to do this, and to place the data in their associated categories which can be sorted in the table. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable subject, well presented. Definitely not a linkfarm, and definitely not unsourced. --Gene_poole 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Links are the verification. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2007 (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.