Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic movement


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Organic movement

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no references and there does not need to be an article for this because all these topics are covered in other articles.Archwindows (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - there are already too many "organic" articles, this is yet another fork. There is nothing here that wouldn't be adequately covered by organic food, organic farming, etc.
 * Keep - This article has been worked on for a couple of years, reads quite well and does seem to contain additional information to others. It could always do with more work and references, it does have multiple refs not yet hyperlinked. I may be possible to merge but not if it is deleted. Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:59, 31 May 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) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The title of this article is notable per sources such as The origins of the organic movement. There are numerous ways of describing these inter-related topics: biodynamics, Soil Association, &c.    Organising this material effectively to best serve our readers should be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion so that the edit histories and attributions are maintained and relevant material is not lost in the wash.  This is our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A well known term and encompasses a range of related initiatives with a common philosophy. The issue should not be whether there are articles on specific components (that's fine) but whether it is a synonym for another term which also has its own article. I don't think see that it is, or that another of the existing titles could provide a natural home for a historical and philosophical overview. I think there are weaknesses in the article, and Wikipedians' desire for sources and mistrust of essays has perhaps shackled it unnecessarily from explaining, for example, what the real drivers have been. But as Colonel Warden says, we should let it evolve. --AJHingston (talk) 17:13, 1 June 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.