Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero waste agriculture

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero waste agriculture edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is an unreferenced WP:OR (tagged as such since 2007 when this was created). Worse, when I tried to rescue it by adding some citations I came to the conclusion the topic is not notable. (Note: don't confuse this with zero waste, which is). "Zero waste agriculture" is barely mentioned in GScholar/Books. GS has only a single English-language conference paper about this. GBooks open with a SPS "book" copying from Wikipedia, and then the term is used in passing in few other works. I am afraid there is nothing to rescue here, the term is ORish and any use of it outside Wikipedia seems to be the case of lowest denominator citogenesis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find more Google Scholar mentions than the nom, including in the abstract of Overview of Pelletisation Technology and Pellet Characteristics from Maize Residues, which is published in the low-impact house journal of a bona fide industrial professional association. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chalst, Well, I did say that the term is "barely mentioned". There are a few, but I am also concerned this may be the fact of low-quality scholarship taking the term invented on Wikipedia... Note that the work you cite doesn't explain the term, nor does it cite it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus - I'm conflicted. The journal article doesn't define the article, but rather it attributes it to the Thai 'Alternative Energy Development Plan'. I've not been able to find an AEDP definition of zero-waste agriculture, so I'm not sure you are not right about it being citogenesis. If the AEDP is referencing the same idea documented in this article, I think we should keep; I'm strongly against citogenesis, so I'd rather we document the AEDP and any relevant Indian activity at Zero waste if that has happened. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Intensive farming has a big problem with waste – I was reading about NI's "poo overload" just a few days ago. The page in question is about an obvious response – a more traditional style of agriculture in which by-products are recycled as manure and the like so that nothing is wasted. It's easy to find books such as Zero Waste – Management Practices for Environmental Sustainability and Sustainable Resource Recovery and Zero Waste Approaches which naturally include agriculture in their scope. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies as it's our policy not to waste such promising material – see WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/africa/zero-waste-farming-godfrey-nzamujo-benin-spc-intl/index.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justice-for-blemished-fruit-how-some-b-c-companies-are-fighting-global-food-waste-1.3807629 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/manipur-farmer-promotes-zero-waste-agriculture-with-low-cost-eel-farming/videoshow/81573914.cms Dream Focus 15:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus's first source is a CNN report on a pioneering zero waste project in Africa. I'd found that we have some pictures of the activities there and so it's good to put this together to improve the article. Teamwork! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zero waste. While fundamentally there is an agricultural side to zero waste, there doesn't seem to be any actual worthwhile content in the article as it stands, and in the absence of quality RSes indicating otherwise, the 'default' hyphenation for the phrase is zero-waste agriculture. I'm not persuaded that dealing with agricultural and food waste falls naturally under the term 'zero waste agriculture', since the materials I have seen generally been mostly concerned with these as inputs into other sections of the economy, such as carbon-neutral energy production. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chalst, Thanks. That's the point, it's a term that is used a few times here and there, but no scholarly source discusses it in-depth. A few mentions in media doesn't help much, we only have a single newspaper (Times of India) that uses in in their title. It's a neologism that is not notable, "zero waste" is becoming a popular buzzword, so if you google there is zero waste production/zero waste manufacturing, zero waste management, zero waste marketing, zero waste store, zero waste fashion, zero waste life/zero waste lifestyle, zero waste movement/zero waste campaign, zero waste product, and I kid you not, zero waste toys and zero waste candy too... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. The article has also been improved since the nomination was tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 07:13, 1 July 2021 (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.