Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Plant Savers


 * 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. Users are free to recreate or move in the draft article. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

United Plant Savers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The following has been left at the talk page. Notice that I merely repost it here and have no opinion on the notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Possible advertisement campaign WP:BIO and/or self-promotion material originally posted by a member of the organization under debate. WP:COI Article features ad copy lifted directly from the organizations website. WP:COPYVIO No independent references to verify claims or official associations found. There are indeed several published articles archived on newsfeeds, but they are sourced directly from the organization. WP:ORG There is small collection of possibly independent web articles but they do not seem to provide very strong actual references. WP:NOT Attempts to verify the references were made after noticing the organization or assumed representative(s) having placed direct external backlinks to "at-risk" propaganda on multiple unrelated pages about specifc herbs. The pages which are linked to request donations and membership subscriptions upwards of $1000. All pages on the site link directly to a store to buy a selection of premium priced books and various other commercial merchandise. WP:ADV 67.230.141.161 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and Replace. Delete due to the reasons of the nomination (well done rationale). Replace with Draft:United Plant Savers which I just wrote clear of copyvio, advertising, etc.. there are more sources if requested to meet notability. -- GreenC  21:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, since no copyvio has been discovered (see thread below), it is probably best to retain the article history, but still replace the content with the Draft copy which is fully sourced and free of COI (which has been established). If sourcing for current content can be found it can be re-added later. -- GreenC  18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Replace with Green Cardamom's rewritten stub. The new stub addresses the copyvio and COI concerns and demonstrates notability through multiple reliable sources for basic facts about the organization. I am more neutral on deletion of the history, but if copyvio concerns force it, I am fine with it. Thanks, GreenC! --Mark viking (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Replace with the draft composed by User:Green Cardamom at Draft:United Plant Savers. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose deletion of article history. The is approaching its 7th birthday on Wikipedia. No objection to wholesale trimming and improvement. I don't see any reason why the history should be lost. If Greencardamom wants to paste his version over this one I say go for it. No need for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's 6 some years old but almost entirely a copy-paste job by one person in 2007. The later edits are mostly minor and probably wouldn't need preservation in light of the wholesale copyvio. -- GreenC  07:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the website and I didn't see the content in the Wikipedia article. Do we know what the website looked like 7 years ago and that the content was taken from there? If so then the article should be deleted as a copyvio. If not the history should be preserved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Website from 2007 (Wayback Machine). I don't see a copyvio do you? I assumed the nominator was correct but maybe not. The COI is correct, Karen Vaughan's page at UPS. But that just means we need to add sources to establish notability and delete any problems with overt advertising and NPOV. So.. unless a copyvio can be established I may change my vote to plain Keep and integrate the sources currently in the Draft copy. -- GreenC  19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarified recommendation above not to delete the history. -- GreenC  18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. If there were a copyvio it would need to be removed or the article deleted. But I'm not aware of any evidence that there is one. In which case I'd like to see the history preserved. Glad you agree. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with Green Cardamom's stub. I'll go along with the consensus here; it seems like a good solution to me.  Losing a copyright violation and its history is hardly something that worries me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2014 (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.