Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee and the environment

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 delete. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee and the environment[edit]

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

Article is strongly biased and inaccurate. Does not discuss alternate viewpoints. References are missing or invalid. Inappropriate tone and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Kona Earth (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a reasonable and notable topic. The article could be improved, as you mentioned. Borock (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't determine whether this topic is notable or not based on the current state of article. It's highly biased with biased references. If a new version emerges that demonstrates this is actually a notable and important topic, I might support it. But I can't support this article or what it may someday become. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have given my opinion on the talk page at an earlier occasion. The core sentence (emphasis added): "I suggest that the article be either renamed to match the contents (with additional work on e.g. POV issues), be re-written to match the title, or be deleted out-right." The last seems to be the most realistic solution at the moment. (I have no objections, however, should someone manage one of the other alternatives.)Michael Eriksson (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. If the article can be massively improved, as previously suggested, to the point of establishing notability, and adequately addressing concerns regarding tone, style, neutrality, sourcing, etc., I'd happily reconsider. If these improvements cannot be made promptly, however, it would be best to scrap it altogether without prejudice towards a re-creation that meets basic encyclopedic standards.--JayJasper (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POV issues and arguments from nom and others--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Johnfos (talk) 02:48, 28 February 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.