Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar Mountain Farm


 * 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) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain Farm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been subject to COI editing for years. Many of the previous sources are SPS or low quality. It is hard to tell if the news mentions are generated by a sustained publicity campaign or due to actual notability.My personal belief is it is the former. This page does not have sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. J bh Talk  15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Based on feedback on the sources here I am withdrawing my delete support. I still feel much of the material has been generated by the farm owner such as the CNN mention where he contacted them to comment rather than the other way around. There seems to be enough to get by GNG and whether or not their techniques work they seem to have positioned themselves firmly in the specialized agricultural discussion of pasture raising pigs. J bh  Talk  14:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There's currently very few actually good sources about it. If some can be found, then definitely keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: Here is the prior version of the article, before I trimmed almost all of it due to citations to op-eds, primary sources, brief mentions, un-reliable sources, ads, and so on. Out of the remaining sources Voice of America is a highly questionable source and many of the others are just brief mentions or quotes., many of which are in local publications. I asked Pubwvj, who is affiliated with the article-subject, what the best possible source was that he felt was missing and it was from a publication that accepts crowd-sourced article submissions from its readers and does not identify any kind of editors among its staff. Generally speaking we should have at least one strong national level source with more than a couple paragraphs on this farm. I agree with giving the article-subject a week to provide any sources that may change our view, and since AfD lasts a week, that should be a suitable deadline. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to pass notability standards, and is clearly self-promotional. From discussions on the Talk page, the sources that appear in trade magazines are crowd-sourced, and not from journalists; little more than blogs without editorial oversight.  More major publications, and they receive merely passing mention.  Couple this with the author of the article being the actual owner of the farm, and we have a recipe that has led to years of protracted argument on the talk page and an AN/I that is larger than the article itself. Non-notable, COI, and promotional.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent amount of coverage from local news outlets, , plus this article in Forbes. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per additional sources listed by Ohnoitsjamie above. FWIW, the government-funded Voice of America is no less reliable a source than the government-funded BBC.  Mini  apolis  22:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Forbes piece says it's written by a "subscriber". Weird. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176 and . Forbes blogs don't have editorial oversight and are of questionable use for establishing notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep with a recommendation that experienced editors monitor the article actively. I disagree with the notion that Voice of America is somehow an inherently unreliable source. No source is 100% reliable all the time, and even Weekly World News can be trusted for the name of its managing editor and the address of its editorial offices. The notion that significant coverage in VoA contributes nothing to notability is just plain wrong. This is not VoA discussing Iranian or Cuban politics in the 1950s. Even so, the other sources in the article are sufficient for notability, in my opinion. This hog farm is notable primarily for its innovative practices regarding boar taint and also feeding with acid whey. Keeping the article is not an endorsement of their practices but rather an acknowledgement that reliable sources discuss them in detail in this context. The coverage cited in the article rises above routine reprint of press releases to significant, independent coverage. The fact that the farm owner may have sent out press releases and blogged a lot is irrelevant. The editorial staffs of reliable sources get at least 100 times more press releases than the number of articles they can publish. 99% go to the electronic circular file. When reliable sources are motivated by a press release to do independent reporting accompanied by fact checking, that is both a normal thing and a good thing. It is evidence of professional editorial judgment. During this process, two editors have been identified as having strong COIs, one "pro" and one "con". Both should be expected to refrain from editing, and confine themselves to proposing edits on the talk page in the form: "Please change content X to such and such, based on what specific reliable source Y (linked) says about the topic." I will support lengthy blocks of any COI accounts editing this article disruptively, either by these two accounts, or any other COI accounts that may emerge in the future. The article will remain on my watch list. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to the sources cited above by Ohnoitsjamie, I quickly see THIS from the Burlington Free Press, an article about the farm. I personally think the encyclopedic approach would be a nice article on pasture-raised pigs, giving the semi-promotional buzz here a miss, but we're not here to talk about what is optimal... We are here only to judge whether this topic meets GNG as the object of substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. This topic does. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Lots of coverage, albeit all a bit lacking in substance. Still think it just about passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you strike your delete position above if your position is now a Keep. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I was initially on the fence, but I think that the sources given by Ohnoitsjamie and Carrite are sufficient to meet WP:CORP (excluding Forbes and mainly due to the Burlington Free Press one). COI is a non-issue at AFD and CorporateM has already done a great job at tidying it up to make it more compliant with policy. Now that there are plenty more eyes on it, it won't degenerate back to how it was. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly sufficient RS to meet GNG, including the Acres USA article from a publisher that claims: Acres U.S.A. is the only national magazine that offers a comprehensive guide to sustainable agriculture. Drawing on knowledge accumulated in more than 40 years of continuous publication, we bring our readers the latest techniques for growing bountiful, nutritious crops and healthy, vibrant livestock. A glance at any issue is enough to see why sustainable farming — we call it “eco-agriculture” because it's both ecological and economical — represents the real revolution in scientific food cultivation. . If that's not an RS, then we have issues. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The only trouble I have with Acres U.S.A is that it publishes articles submitted by the general public; while it may copyedit reader submissions, there is no editorial oversight in the sense of journalistic norms. It ends up that those reader submitted articles have no more reliability than blogs.  That being said, I am finding there may be validity in keeping the article, and may change my vote.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only trouble I have with Acres U.S.A is that it publishes articles submitted by the general public; while it may copyedit reader submissions, there is no editorial oversight in the sense of journalistic norms. A lot of reputable magazines that meet our RS guidelines have articles submitted by the "General Public".  Most contribution guidelines don't specify: "General Public don't bother". Having been published in a number of magazines on a variety of subjects, I consider myself the "General Public" when I am submitting articles.  Actually, you made "General Public" up, because Acres U.S.A's contribution guidelines don't say general public at all, they say: Acres U.S.A. is a magazine written by passionate people who have a sincere interest in the principles of sustainable and organic agriculture. Most of what we print comes from people who have learned their lessons the hard way — with hands-on experience, trial and error, and a willingness to seek out the information they need to get results. Our writers are the farmers, ranchers, consultants and researchers busy innovating in the field, as well as insightful freelancers who recognize innovation, know the right questions to ask, and can clearly and accurately tell the story. .  Hardly sounds like the General Public or one-off blog, especially since they've been doing it for 40 years. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not a neutral journal; they advocate a particular style of farming and uncritically publish anything that promotes their viewpoint. this particular article was written by another farmer who also advocates that style of farming.  So you've got a biased source talking to another biased source published by a biased press and no one in this chain will check any claim made.  Bruceki (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want familiarize yourself with WP:BIASED which is very explicit about not disqualifying RS on anyone's perception of neutrality. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, the Acres article cited in this article cites: North Carolina State Proceedings of North Carolina Healthy Hogs Seminar (1995) and Equinews-of Kentucky Equine Research. These hardly seem like biased sources relative to this article.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the acres article referred to here had a publication date pretty recently - Feb or March of 2015. Any reference in 1995 predates the existence of this farm as a pig operation by the owners admission in the talk page for the article which could either be 2003 when he claims to have purchased his first pigs, or 2007 when he claims that he incorporated.  Pulling the dates out of memory; statements on talk page.    Bruceki (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The biased source entry you cite specifically states that the normal standards for reliable sources apply, and that fact and source checking should have been done by the publication. I'm explicitly concerned that this particular source doesn't check claims but reports them uncritically.  Bruceki (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, please provide "PROOF" of your opinion, because your opinion ...... --Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the burden of proof directed the other way? the source has to be proven reliable, not proven unreliable.  How do you propose that I prove a negative?  Bruceki (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, an editor with a clear COI related the the article opposes the inclusion of a source with which they fundamentally disagree as un-reliable because they don't check facts and are clearly biased against the editor's view of the world--YOU. On the other hand the source has been in sustained publication for 40 years and on the articles in the source that I've reviewed, there has been routine attribution of facts to academic sources. I cannot in all good faith say that ACRES USA exercises editorial review consistent with WP expectations.  However, 40 years of sustained publication does speak to some credibility.  Given the 40 years of sustained publication, one would think that if they were indeed un-reliable by WP standards, there would be some substantive evidence to that end.  The mere opinion of an editor with a clear COI on the subject isn't the kind of evidence that will convince many that the source is un-reliable by WP standards. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read this article. I don't have a position on it - I don't agree, or disagree with it.  My concern is that the source doesn't have a clear history of fact checking.  If there are academic cites present in that publication about this particular subject, bring 'em on.  As an aside, I actually do run a farm that pretty much conforms to what that magazine appears to promote.  And I resemble the "hands on, learn by experience" folks that they claim write articles.  I talk about / edit what I know.  Bruceki (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Sugar mountain farms has been active in promoting a particular style of animal husbandry and while their viewpoint is controversial and their results are unsupported, that controversy works well to promote their agenda. Note that on the COI page and in various comments I'm considered a "strong negative COI" related to SMF.   Bruceki (talk) 23:28, 2 May 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.