Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmdrop


 * 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. There is lots of discussion here but no real agreement on whether the sources are sufficient to demonstrate Farmdrop's notability. Note that this close shouldn't stop a cleanout of the article if editors deem it to be low quality or promotional in tone. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Farmdrop

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Promotion and WP:Deletion policy concerns because both information and sources are advertising; worse, the promotionalism couldn't simply be fixed since (1) the Overview section is literally a mirror image of the company website, (2) is closely similar and (3) is not significant. Article sources analysis:, 2nd is about starting a food campaign in a local trade publication, 3rd is a funding report which is unacceptable for WP:CORP, 4rd is an interview, 5th is , 6th is similar to 4 with a company interview and armDrop recruits a local person – or ‘keeper’ – to organise the scheme in their area, running the weekly ‘drops’ and recruiting nearby producers. The keeper and FarmDrop get 10% each, and the farmers retain 80% of all profits, 7th is and both 8 and 9 are local news reports about the company's financials and 10 is closely similar and finally 11 is another company interview. There's one last link, a review but it's yet again another local trade publisher, so not enough for GNG. Also, see the equally promotional sources found: 1-2, 8, 10, 11, 19, 21 are local business reports, 3, 5, 7, 15-18, 22, 31-34, 35, 37, 41-44 are funding reports, 4 is equally similar as before but it's instead a company-sourced profile (Producers who sell via Farmdrop are also given a roughly 75 percent...." and closely behind that is 23-29 & 36 until it eventually repeats the cycle. Promotional always outweighs general notability especially when the latter cites "independent reliable coverage sources", especially when TheGuardian itself says it welcomes sponsored or donated stories. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review, and the article does not have a promotional tone. News sources that provide neutral or positive coverage about companies are not automatically promotional as a default, and some of the quotes in the nomination serve to demonstrate that the topic has received significant coverage. In addition to the sources in the article, there's also significant coverage in the book listed below. North America1000 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No One Eats Alone: Food as a Social Enterprise. Island Press. pp. 128–132.


 * Delete as I actually examined the book source above and it not only contains "guide" in its book lead but the same company quotes which were supplied by the company CEO as in the analyzed sources above, show it's the one and the same situation: Company-supplied information which therefore wouldn't satisfy GNG since it emphasizes independent reliable sources of which primary sources aren't. In fact, even the one paragraph about the company in the book would violate our WP:Not webhost and Not guide which states Wikipedia is not a how-to or guide for anything at all. I actually looked further and I saw this is essentially all GoogleBooks offers: Listings, guides, notices, etc. and that too wouldn't satisfy GNG's criteria. WP:ORGIND itself says anything still primarily or republished from the company is unacceptable because it's not substantial; in fact, we've established before that it's obvious promotionalism when the company is responsible for any automatic "business overview" since they would be motivating it and it certainly wouldn't be a coincidence that over 20+ articles happen, supposedly from news publishers, would be copying it. As the nomination says, our policies take priority here. One of the applicable quotes of WP:NOT is Simple listings without context information. In fact, the first thing GNG itself goes into is how WP:What Wikipedia is not actually applies over GNG and therefore an article cannot be guaranteed acceptance. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and that's what all the sources are based in. SwisterTwister   talk  05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The book source is not a guide book. North America1000 05:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ORGIND. I agree with the nom's analysis of the sources. Most or all of the article refs are recycling company material and publishing it. The only source in these articles is the founder, Ben Pugh, who is quoted in the articles, which indicates the text is derived from promotional materials circulated by the company and then republished. This is discussed in WP:ORGIND - any material written by the organization and any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly that is published are not considered criteria that indicates notability and inclusion. Also, kudos to the nom for pointing out the discrepancies with the other sources and showing why some 40 or so other sources do not support this topic's notability. Mentioning or covering business alliances, clients, competitors, employees, equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, and/or subdivisions does not indicate notability.  ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Churnalism and Video news release for present day strategies regarding such endeavors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the company is notable given sufficient media coverage. The wording is factual and information presented is appropriate for a company at this kind of stage in its lifecycle. I know WP:OSE is not a criteria, but closest rival HelloFresh seem sufficient to have an article. They are at a similar development stage. This should be considered for a fair and balanced view. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I see detailed coverage in The Guardian and The Independent, among others. Meets WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. Any promotional writing can be fixed outside of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per GNG articles. Will try to clean it up a bit. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete.  one of the keep opinions says "coverage appropriate for companies at this stage in their lifecycle". And so it is; the press coverage is indeed what would be expected for companies at this stage: promotions and notices, trying to get the company to a notable stage in its life cycle.When it does become notable, then there will be coverage suitable for an encyclopedia article. But not now.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * which was meant to address previous delete commentary that a lot of the media coverage / google results are about funding rounds. Hence the comparison with HelloFresh. Over the years, Farmdrop has had regular editorial coverage in the guardian, the independent, the evening standard, the FT (paywall). In my book, this passes GNG. As someone said previously, concerns about tonality can be addressed. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Why repeat what others have said, DGG, Steve Quinn, and Swister have nailed it on the head. OSE is definitely not an argument I would use, and is in direct contradiction to WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per and others. This article clearly meets WP:GNG-- just because an article is promotional in tone doesn't mean that it deserves to be deleted if the sources are there for a proper article. Nomader (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On what policy basis? Because both WP:Deletion and WP:Wikipedia is not both state how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" so promotional content can in fact be removed by this alone. At best, we would need a fundamental rewrite here with significant changes to appeal our 2 policies. Also, to add, GNG also says, "If is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy" therefore GNG itself compliments to our policy's own findings. Since the nomination was based in policy, the Delete votes have agreed with those findings. SwisterTwister   talk  18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could have definitely clarified that comment much better. What I'm saying is-- if there's sources that are independent and notable per WP:GNG, we should not just delete articles willy nilly because they're *currently* written in a promotional tone if they have a hope that they could be improved. Quoting the policy, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject-- therefore, I supported !voted keep. I hope that helps to explain my rationale. Nomader (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to add to this here-- articles like this clearly do meet WP:GNG and pass the WP:NOT test that you're referring to. That's why this is a !keep-- not the guidebook stuff that you're referring to. Nomader (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually GNG is not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is; a for the source, it was analyzed in the Delete comments above where it was found to be promotional. Any article that is about "staying local and fresh food with Farmdrop": See first red highlight above and also Some 70 producers now supply goods to FarmDrop, which then delivers the food using electric vans within zones one to three in the London area. Where a producer cannot be found in the local area, for example with salmon, they will source one from as close as possible, it will adopt a hub model where a new network of local producers will be sourced around that area to maintain the same close proximity with the customers, said Pugh.The card can be loaded with value, much like a standard gift card from a chain store, and can then be spent in a network of 120 independent shops across the city as well as a handful of stores in Frome, some 25 miles away. The business was set up to support the local community and has so far issued about £200,000 in value across 20,000 cards since it was established two and a half years ago, said Perez., is going to be promotional since it goes on to repeat company services; that certainly isn't independent since a news publication would never care about promoting they have no company ownership of. If each paragraph begins with a "He said, He said, they said, company said", that is not independent as quoted in GNG's "independent of the subject". SwisterTwister   talk  21:23, 28 July 2017 (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.