Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuous harvest

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous harvest[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with "The cited source appears to fully cover the content of this article.", but that does nothing to assert notability. This seems to be a mere dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment a google search reveals mainly guides on Cannabis growing. I cant see any notability, so really this should be migrated to Wiktionary. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this, and while you're right that the concept is common in that area, removing it from Google search still leaves thousands of other sources. The concept is used in cell culture, notably for stem cells; for vegetables, and for home-grown fruit. There is a considerable literature on continuous harvest in the self-reliant area, and in urban agriculture. This is an obvious Keep. And I dare say that even hemp harvesting contributes to the topic's notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't know what someone is smoking, but a GBooks search yields a long string of hits on gardening books discussing techniques for obtaining a continuous harvest rather than all at once. It's not ever going to be that long of an article, but so what? Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Google Books search indicates numerous sources discussing various approaches to maintaining a continuous harvest of vegetables over the course of a growing season, contrasted with a one-time or periodic harvest. The term is also used in forestry, referring to the same concept in harvesting trees (GBooks: "continuous harvest forestry"). The currently cited reference describes specific methods for continuously harvesting vegetables, including crop selection and harvest windows, and succession planting. This is an agricultural/horticultural topic, with numerous reliable sources, and not simply a dictionary definition. --Tsavage (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Expandable article about a notable topic. See source examples below; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept for which it is useful to have an article. bd2412 T 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get the reason for the nomination. This is obviously a notable article for an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Don't you just love how these sources magically add themselves to the article the second you find them?
@Bearian: If it's so notable, then why is the article a pathetic microstub that has been gathering dust for a decade? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: That does not address the fact that everyone screams "keep, it's notable, here are sources" but no one wants to step up to the plate and fix the article. Do you plan to do this, or are you just going to palm it off to someone else just like always? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider improving the article yourself, rather than ordering others to do so. Regarding "are you just going to palm it off to someone else just like always", nothing could be further from the truth. I have improved many AfD-nominated articles, both during and after nominations. Ultimately, it is patronizing for you to expect AfD participants to be somehow obligated to improve articles you nominate for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Because literally every time I nominate an article for AFD and someone digs up sources, no one ever, ever, EVER bothers to add the goddamn sources. And then I check five years later, and the article is still gathering dust because everyone's just sitting on their hands waiting for everyone else to do it. And it infuriates me that people are only willing to dig up the sources, but never willing to actually improve the article. Even worse when they throw around "There is no deadline" as an excuse. How about actually carrying through on proving the notability instead of just half-assing, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Tuberculosis in popular culture. But I can't fix the whole encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only perform at AfD whole-assed, never half-assed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also could be that after putting up with spiteful nominations and abuse during AfD discussions, editors, for some reason, lack enthusiasm to make the improvements you're asking for. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable concept, well expandable, already goes well beyond dictionary definition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.