Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Style Foundation


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 06:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sustainable Style Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY WP:ORG - Nothing in Google News, Article has 1 ref, etc. Google search produces atypical "Web2.0" search padding - LinkedIN, Facebook, Myspace, and various blogs. PeterWesco (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a good example of the limitations of Google News. There is sufficient coverage found via HighBeam, General OneFile and ProQuest. Or just look at their press page. I'll finish formatting these and add them to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I said I was going to add them to the article, and I did so on November 13, eight days before your request. A single article, like this is sufficient to keep this article. There are twelve such citations. This is a slam dunk according to the criteria at WP:N and WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * delete while there are sources, I'm struggling to find significant coverage in the sources, just talks about a blog, FT just says they give awards and have a definition of sustainability and New Yorker says they together with ID magazine and the treehugger website sponsored a prize for a design competition. All these a brief mentions in longer articles.--Salix (talk): 09:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * week delete The seattle-pi article this does count as significant coverage. However this is from 2005 and I can't see that they have really created much impact from there.--Salix (talk): 09:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per above . after some research I have revised my opinion.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is false to say it "blatantly fails". It could I suppose, arguably fail, but only just barely. There are 12 quality citations. In order to say all 12 of these are insufficient, the ball is now in your court to argue they are trivial, as described in WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * why aren't these citations incorporated into text? this is a one line mention. this is another one line mention that merely mentions they sponsored a contest. this is a short mention. this is a blatant self promotional piece.LibStar (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's a stub? I contributed to the article by adding some references that demonstrate notability and aid future editors in improving the article. If this article were a higher priority for me, I'd expand it and incorporate the citations. If you think expanding it is a high priority, then be my guest. If not, leave it and let someone else take over. The only relevant issue here is that the notability criteria have been met. Dealing with fixable issues is outside the scope of AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the references are self promotion.  Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms.    The other one liner mentions do not bring notability.   Grist.org is the house organ for the "green economy" and the first stop for spammy PR...  When an AfD discussion transcends into sentence counting to determine notability, then it should be clear there is no notability to be found.   Especially in an article that has only 3 sentences. PeterWesco (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care that much about the Sustainable Style Foundation, but if you have any evidence to support the accusation of paid stories in the sources cited, such as the Seattle PI and The New Yorker, or your claims about Grist, that would be useful for future AfD discussions. I'm sure similar sources will be cited again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In PR, the deal is made with the reporters and editors rather than the advertising representatives from network and publications. Check out VerdePR's post:  VerdePR and how about this: co-branded Skinny Dip beer promotion with the environmental website Grist.org. PeterWesco (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That source says nothing about the Seattle PI, the New Yorker, or any of the sources cited here. It's just a cynical take on how the media works. There's nothing in Notability that suggests that we have to start throwing out entire sections of newspapers because somebody once said that they are influenced by PR. If you want to suggest a change along these lines at Wikipedia talk:Notability, you can do that, but this deletion discussion depends on the notability criteria as they are now, not as someone might wish them to be. The only evidence against Grist is that they accepted paid advertising on their web site, and had a promotion of some kind. Newspapers are supported by ads. Newspapers have promotions. So what? Sustainable Style Foundation is an environmental topic and it got covered in a newspaper that covers environmental topics. Because it's notable. You've offered no evidence that the Sustainable Style Foundation has been writing big checks to media outlets. They're not that rich, for one thing, making the whole conspiracy theory rather implausible.And once again, the fact that the article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP.Also. Susan Orlean and Dorothy Parvaz are respected journalists. You're making a serious charge against them based on zero evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are a little too close to the subject of the article.  'I made no accusations as you claim.   I merely stated that the lifestyle sections are the fodder for PR firms.  I made no statement at anytime that this particular article was purchased.'  PeterWesco (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. You said "Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms." Paid publicity fails WP:SPS, which is the whole issue here. Either you were saying the articles cited were paid advertising, or you came here to waste everyone's time.What evidence do you have that I have any connection whatsoever with this subject?At some point, repeatably making false statements like this is considered disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * comment my !vote still stands. blatantly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG Delete After a little digging, the sourcing for this article seems 100% PR driven. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete — The most significant press comment on the SSF is probably the mention in the New Yorker in 2008. It's a passing mention, but it counts for something. On the other hand, there is no coverage that shows that SSF is notable within the world of 'sustainability' provided there is such a thing. If you do Whatlinkshere in Wikipedia you find no mentions in articles except where the SSF has given one of their awards to some famous person like Pierce Brosnan. This is SSF recognizing the importance of Pierce Brosnan but not vice versa. Even that mention is sourced only to SSF's own web site. The website at sustainablestyle.org has a press page where they list some coverage. That page has no entries since 2008. From their web site you can't verify if they have any paid employees; the impression is that they don't.  They seem to be a volunteer-based organization. They sponsor occasional meetings and they give out awards. If you do [links:sustainablestyle.org] on Google it finds 109 inbound links. This is tiny compared to a larger website like http://earth911.com which has some interests in common with SSF, but gets over 200,000 incoming links. The Earth911.com site does not even have a Wikipedia article, though I imagine one would be justified. Earth911.com gets 8,561 views per day according to Alexa; sustainablestyle.org gets 152 views per day. EdJohnston (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC). I struck out my web site analysis; may not have been done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (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.