Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black's role in 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 Speedy delete. Original research; unsourced; unsepcific, misspelled title. Fails to mention slavery and sharecropping (!). El_C 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black's role in farming

Black's role in farming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy candidate but not IMO speedyable - listing for more opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after salvage-merging if anything is salvageable / mergeable. Intention may be commendable, but the division of encyclopedia information into a topic like this title seems ill-considered. Hu 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Looks/reads like original research to me, I'd go for deletion Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete TSO1D 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's OR, no question about it. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WTF is the only term that comes to mind for this article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unverified and with a stupid (and grammatically incorrect) title to boot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Heligoland . Sharkface217 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete none of the percentages can be verified in the article and the bulk of it is pretty much OR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It is not needed.--Meno25 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Persian Poet Gal; the article appears like it would need a major overhaul, as well as sources with which to verify the information contained within were it to be kept. Kyra_~(talk) 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, nothing encyclopedic. Terence Ong 10:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic and reads as if it is OR. — Seadog (Talk) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the topic could be worthwhile, but this article is not worthwhile.-- danntm ^T _C 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and, it's Blacks' roles in farming.Bearly541 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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.