Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest producing countries of agricultural commodities

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) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest producing countries of agricultural commodities

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

This article is a list of unsourced #1 and #2 national producers of goods. The data is presented without any context, or indication about how/when the info in the list was decided. aprock (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic, tag for sources. Another good example of something that got hauled to AfD prematurely. This is theoretically fixable through the normal editing process. A polite note to the page creator to provide sourcing might work wonders. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching for sources, and found none. The linked reference is to some stat site, which hardly indicates notability. By all means, if you think it's worthwhile, do leave another note for the page creator. aprock (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate topic for a comprehensive encyclopedia ; WP includes many of the elements of an almanac, as do all unabridged encyclopedias DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources can be found establishing the notability of this sort of almanac data, that would go a long way establishing the article as encyclopedic. aprock (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is obviously notable since this sort of thing is surely covered by reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list, not an article, and should be renamed accordingly. Frankly, Wikipedia's coverage of agriculture and agricultural topics is absolutely terrible, and badly in need of support from experienced editors. But deleting this list won't improve matters at all, so keep.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 23 May 2011 (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.