- 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Advance Sowing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to be a non-notable sowing method: 202 ghits, most of which do not actually refer to the practice. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise new scientific concepts. Part Deux 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there are some independent references that show that this is already more than an interesting case study [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]- This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I googled this too and found no trouble locating many non-trivial sources that refer directly to this practice. I've added a few of these references. The subject is both notable and of considerable scientific merit. The article needs to be cleaned up and wikified, not deleted. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thanks for providing more sources, but 'Speedy keep' would imply an erroneous or bad faith nomination for the deletion this article submitted by Advance Sowers. As I tried to indicate above, I am open to revise my opinion, but would put a great emphasis on sources independent from the inventor and more than mentioning of a case study. And when the one independent review says, that "cs15 uses what he calls 'advance sowing'", we do not seem to have a common definition or a mulitple use of the same sowing method. --Tikiwont 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome...I've added three more and could easily keep going. I did not intend to imply a bad faith nomination, but I do believe this is an erroneous nomination. There is a single inventor for this process, but the references to him and the method are numerous and non-trivial, including the ABC and several government publications. In addition, reference to this method spans over a decade...not simply an 'interesting case study.' The google hits are clearly referring to the same technique and many also refer directly to the farmer who invented the technique. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, time spans in agriculture are long and it would have been useful if the nominated article had already inlcuded a clearer common understanding of the term which I've now tried to add msyelf. Anyway, with the latest sources we have two independent ones and I have no problem with keeping the article. --Tikiwont 09:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article is much better now, thanks. Good save. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos to both of you. I love when an article gets so nicely improved through the AFD process.--Kubigula (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think we could debate about whether most of the sources are sufficiently reliable for an encyclopedia. However, the case study is a solid source and I think there is a decent case for meeting the notability guidelines. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But this doesn't mean it might not be better served as a re-direct later on. Having Gsearched the term "dry sowing" (which is all the article claims it is) I find quite a few more references, especially in reference to Africa. (Not that I see many fields these days!) --Richhoncho 13:54, 7 March 2007 (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.