Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stine Seed


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Stine Seed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Edwardx with the no rationale; when I restored the notability template to get a third opinion, he removed it again with the edit summary "how is this company not notable?" - so we are here. All coverage for this company comes from agriculture/biotech trade journals/websites (that are not sufficient, per NCOMPANY's audience section); they are not numerous enough to qualify for exemption under CORPDEPTH, and the one mainstream, reliable source, Forbes' article at, mentions the company in passing, and is mostly about the millionaire who funded it. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to warrant standa-alone notability; I'd suggest merger to Harry Stine, but given the creator's custom of tag removal with little discussion, I think we should discuss the possible solutions here. For now, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article reads, "the world's largest private seed company, and the largest independent seed company in the US.".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Largest world Foo-ian country Foo-type business is not a criteria found in NCOMPANY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Agriculture-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as those claims with some coverage should be enough to keep. For example, look what Articles for deletion/Limoneira where I saved after finding coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Resorting to personal abuse such as "given the creator's [me, that is] custom of tag removal with little discussion" does not help the nominator's case, especially as they are only able to cite one example, and thus the epiphet "custom" is without foundation. And to criticise the Forbes article, "mentions the company in passing", is a gross misrepresentation, when it contains in-depth serious coverage of Stine Seed. Anyway, I have added two more sources just so we can stop wasting time over another AfD, the latest in a series of such, all unsuccessful, and which I have previously noted amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Piotrus. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the first paragraph is way showy and too much, but the "largest" inclusion meets reasoning to keep. Without looking too deep, I found some additional references of the company out there that could be included as well. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the new coverage helps; it's still is either about the millionaire (person), or from agriculture trade journals, failing AUDIENCE requirements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep According to the sources the company was awarded the first-ever U.S. soybean patent. That in itself makes it notable in my view and the trade/industry sources are exactly the sort of sources one would hope to see for this type of article. This deletion nomination is misconceived and based on a confused and overly legalistic idea of what we are here to do. Creating articles like this is exactly what we should be doing and I hope Edwardx produces more of them. I also am becoming concerned by the nominator's behaviour. I hope they will back off. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2015 (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.