Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental impacts of pig farming

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. No consensus that the content issues are severe enough to outweigh the notability of the topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impacts of pig farming[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay with a particular POV. Even if the subject is encyclopedic, this essay concentrates on one country. Also contains unsourced statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (I have removed any that were BLP issues). Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV pushing, extensive overlap with Environmental impact of meat production. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written as an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Complete failure of WP:NPOV. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Environmental impact of meat production is general and does not include specifics of any industry (pig, cattle, etc.) - the article needs a rewrite and I think it should be templated. The title is WP:NPOV and the subject is notable, this has also been a major issue in China in recent years documented by WP:RS like Reuters, The Economist, The Guardian - I don't think AfD is a substitute for editing and improving an article that currently has problems. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DINC; NPOV problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Many, many reliable sources on the environmental impact of pig farming specifically exist, discussing regions worldwide, including:
- Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: The Pig Sector. OECD Publishing. 2003. p. 1. ISBN 978-92-64-10417-4.
- Eriksson, Ingrid Strid; Elmquist, Helena; Stern, Susanne; Nybrant, Thomas (2004). "Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production" (PDF). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 10 (2): 143–154.
- Maria Angeles O. Catelo. Structural Changes in the Philippine Pig Industry and Their Environmental Implications. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. p. 1.
- Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., & Hermansen, J. E. (2007). Danish pork production: an environmental assessment. Aarhus University.
- Reckmann, K.; Traulsen, I.; Krieter, J. (2012). "Environmental Impact Assessment methodology with special emphasis on European pork production" (PDF). Journal of Environmental Management. 107: 102–109.
- Brooks, P. H., J. D. Beal, and S. Niven. "Liquid feeding of pigs: potential for reducing environmental impact and for improving productivity and food safety." Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia 13 (2001): 49-63.
- Nguyen, Thu Lan T.; Hermansen, John E.; Mogensen, Lisbeth (2012). "Environmental costs of meat production: the case of typical EU pork production" (PDF). Journal of Cleaner Production. 28: 168–176.
- Trienekens, J.; Petersen, B.; Wognum, N.; Brinkmann, D. (2009). European Pork Chains: Diversity and Quality Challenges in Consumer-oriented Production and Distribution. Wageningen Academic Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-90-8686-103-3.
- Verstegen, M.W.A. (1993). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environmental Consequences. EAAP publication. PUDOC. ISBN 978-90-220-1085-3.

That's more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Problems with the article as it stands should be addressed by improving the article, not removing it. FourViolas (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here in Canada, it's a big deal, especially in Quebec and New Brunswick. A petition to the Government of Canada resulted in about hog production resulted in these responses form three federal ministries, archived as Environmental impacts of intensive hog operations, New Brunswick. The response from Environment Canada does acknowledge that there are specific issues to the hog industry, above and beyond livestock in general. The petition also makes mention of Bacon, The Film, a documentary film on "the social and environmental impacts of this proliferation of huge hog operations." The latter would be considered an additional reliable source, as the issues related to the hog industry in Canada would pertain in the U.S. as well. Now, I get that this is an article on "Environmental impacts of pig farming" in the United States and that's fine, at least for now. "...Concentrat[ing] on one country" is an argument for expansion, not deletion. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form, but try to add content and salvage. The article has an axe to grind and is not NPOV. The article would have to be expanded to be encyclopedic. Not sure if original author would be willing to do this. Highly doubtful that the author would be willing to revamp the article. The article is a case where pro-pig farm arguments are intentionally left out. For example, the economic loss to the pig farmers if pig farms were shut down or radically had to change the way they operated. I personally would not want to live next to a pig farm as I heard the stench can be very strong. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup, or merge/redirect. FourViolas lays out the sources that establish notability here. Yes, the article does needs cleanup, but its current state isn't so bad so as to call for WP:TNT. No objection to a merge/redirect to either Concentrated animal feeding operation or pig farming. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic certainly looks to be notable, and is actually a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is sufficient content to stand alone and not be merged elsewhere. Sure there are problems with balance in the article. They can be indicated by a tag, and are not due to POV pushing. This sort of problem should be fixed by editing, and not by deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing, and any useful info that does conform to NPOV can be merged into the pig farming article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:34, 18 April 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.