Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocton Dairies


 * 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   keep, refocus, and move to 2010 Nocton Dairies controversy. There seems to be insufficient coverage of the organisation as a whole, but plenty in relation to the planning application. Note that the target I've moved it to seemed to have some general agreement but it's not necessarily definitive - if a consensus on the talk page comes up with a different title that's better suited, please don't consider this closure as an impediment to moving it somewhere else. ~ mazca  talk 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nocton Dairies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article fails WP:ORG and WP:1E as the organization does not appear to be notable apart from some opposition to a single planning application. The petition and facebook group opposition are not notable for size and there is no sign of sustained media interest. Raising for discussion rather than PROD as there is some media interest but not significant enough or sustained enough to meet the criteria of impact on the historical record required. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a media outlet for campaign groups. Fæ (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the article, the planning application has been withdrawn. This is an article promoting a campaign that represents itself as an article about an abandoned development by a non-notable company. WP:SOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind". Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete : WP:UNENCYC - local  news item. WP:CRYSTAL : discusses an event that  might  not  happen -  and didn't. --Kudpung (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another planning application is likely to be submitted soon. http://nocton.blogspot.com/2010/07/nocton-dairies-limited_30.html The facebook group continues to grow in size. Media interest may be low at the moment but I would not be surprised if it spiked again as the story unfolds. This issue may have an impact on the historical record because it could mean a substantial shift in the way cows are farmed in the UK. Good point about Wikipedia not being an outlet for campaign groups. But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Wikipedia great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen? OliverCopsey (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverCopsey (talk • contribs)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whateer happens in the future cannot be documented in an encycopedia WP:CRYSTAL; Facebook is not acceptable within the meaning of WP:RS. and Wikipedia is not a platform for pressure groups. WP:SOAP--Kudpung (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As falling foul of WP:1E and WP:ORG. Planning appeals are not that rare or, unless it causes a change in the law, that significant. Re 'But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Wikipedia great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen?' - no, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and contains things that are notable, not things a campaign group hope may become notable. News outlets report things as they happen Nuttah (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now, I know that this goes against what a lot of other experienced editors think, and I know that here is a danger of this article being a bit soapbox / pressure-group ish, but this has attracted a lot of attention in the national media here, and I'm sure a whole load more references could be found - I'll try and clean it up, and get rid of the FB links. If WP can produce an unbiased factual article on controversial topics like this, then all the better, IMHO. Chris (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local event regarding non-notable companies. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nageh (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit harsh - look at all the national press coverage it got. Most events are to some degree local, it's whether they have any national impact that metters, and this does. Chris (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A big harsh, agreed. But the thing is, the plans have been withdrawn so even the company isn't notable at the moment. There are also no articles on the people or companies behind the plan on wikipedia. So I fail to see why this one-time event should be covered. Nageh (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article appears to be (and have been) almost entirely about a campaign against planning applications. If you feel that the campaign is notable based on the press coverage, then I suggest you find some sources to demonstrate its notability and propose a new article. As it stands there has been nothing new added since this AfD started that can show that Nocton Dairies (the topic of this nomination) will meet the WP:ORG guidelines in the near future. Fæ (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:org says :"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". Are The Observer, The Guardian, The Times and BBC News not reliable enough? I take your point about the article being more about the rejection of the planning application, mind - maybe a better place for the article would be at Rejection of Nocton Dairies' planning application or something like that, but it's a but cumbersome. The reason that this is notable is not because of the campaign to stop it, but because of its impact on British agricultural policy. Essentially the rejection of this application is a "No" to intensive milk farming in the UK, and the article doesn't quite make that clear. I'll try and find a source for that and add it. Chris (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you work this better out, and change the title into something meaningful that refers to the campaign rather than to the company, the picture might look a bit better after all. Nageh (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename and refocus the article, as per comment by user Chris above. I think the actual subject matter - the public opposition to the application, and the long term effects on UK agricultural policy - are notable, given the fairly large collection of references.  The problem is that the ostensible subject of the article (Nocton Dairies) is not.  As for a less cumbersome title: 2010 Nocton Dairies Controversy would seem appropriate.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

It's been established that as it stands this would be delete. However, some have indicated that if refocused and moved it would meet guidelines. Please discuss appropriate titles, and whether the event itself meets notability guidelines. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2010 Nocton Dairies Controversy seems reasonable, however from the current sources available of the campaign (the majority of the national newspaper articles do not mention a campaign, only critical comments from animal rights groups) and the lack of any sources describing resulting change in official planning policy or legislative proposal, I have yet to see anything that would show the campaign meets WP:GNG. There are national newspaper articles, which demonstrates that campaign has succeeded in its publicity objective, however as per my original nomination, the numbers of people who joined the facebook group was non-notable and the outcomes of the campaign have also been non-notable. In particular it is not clear that the withdrawal of dairy plans and potential future re-submittal was as a result of anything the campaign did. I am slightly concerned that PR campaigns may be interpreted as meeting GNG due to press impact (the whole point of a PR campaign) when the substance of a PR campaign is too weak for an encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link to an article from the Economist about the future ramifications for the British Dairy Industry. There are also a lot more new articles out there in the last week or so because of the resubmitted planning application, but if I add any more the list of refs will be longer than the article! Chris (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider the Economist an excellent high quality source. The article implies that the planned development would be the largest of its type to date in the UK by a significant margin but does not actually state it. The story talks about resistance to the plans but does not specify anything about the campaign in order to support an argument that the campaign itself is notable. If such a good quality source were to include clearer statements about notability then the issue of whether to keep such an article would be cracked but I'm not sure that this source does it yet. Fæ (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The recently added Independent, 25 June, does it for me. This makes it explicit that the plan is for "Europe's largest dairy unit" and says a few things about the campaign (more probably needed though). Personally I would be happy to see the suggested article about the campaign created on this basis. If it (or another) gets built there may be a later merge discussion to be had... Fæ (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article as it stands now as a firm basis to discuss the ongoing activities around the intended company merger. After proper renaming of the article (as suggested) I would agree to have the article kept. Nageh (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2010 (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.