Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwins Seeds


 * 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. JForget 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unwins Seeds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG. Google pulls up nothing, google news pulls up nothing, google books pulls up teeny tiny mentions that fail the requirement of significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There's certainly coverage on Google News and Unwins Seeds are pretty major in the UK - if you go into a garden centre, chances are it's their seeds on sale. (I'm in the UK but have no particular interest in Gardening, so I'd suggest they're close to being a "household name", for whatever that means) ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this pulls up nothing for me. How odd. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Try "All dates". It's hardly front page news, but it's persistent. Personally, I'd venture to suggest persistent coverage is better than a 5 minute blaze of glory when it comes to notability, but I don't know what the consensus is on that one. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the information in the article is true, and it seems to be, this company is certainly notable. The article needs better sources, true, but deletion would be a step backwards.Borock (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the article information make it notable? Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A leading garden seed provider in a major nation should be notable, and have a better article. See Burpee Seeds. Borock (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Burpee needs a better article too. But still it is a major business, and cultural influence, in the USA. Unwins seems to be the same in the UK.Borock (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A leading garden seed provider should be able to pass WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, if you're dealing with an article about a British organisation, you're best off looking at the BBC and the Times newspaper, since these are the most widely-accepted reliable sources in Britain. If you do this, you will find a reliable source about Unwins Seeds, another reliable source that mentions Unwins Seeds, and a   reliable source about the nursery site itself. The moral of the story is, don't rely on Google searches.  My !vote is snow keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are other sources too. I think I'll do some article rescue.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A long established and nationally known company. Sources exist, even if Google doesn't immediately spit them out.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)
 * Keep A search of the NewsUK database returns 237 hits for "unwins seeds" from 1991 to date (174 in national newspapers) or 623 for unwins+seeds. The best refs I found were The Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Mar 15, 2003; p. 43 Family firm has been sowing the seeds of success for a century, or a shorter article The Times (London); Jan 6, 2003; Mark Griffiths; p. 10 The sweet success of 100 years. Clearly passes WP:ORG. Tassedethe (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (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.