Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmdrop (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Many of the deletion arguments are rooted in WP:PROMO, and the keep arguers have made the case that the article passes that test: the article it is not sourced to press releases or first-party sources.

There is a subjective interpretation at the root of some of the delete arguments: when is an article that appears in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking actually the product of a PR campaign and not an editorial assignment or investigative whim of a journalist? Unless some sort of consistent litmus test is invented and applied to Wikipedia policy, these sorts of judgements will always be subjective ones. A Traintalk 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmdrop

Farmdrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous attempts to de-promotionalize were unsuccessful once, twice but then restored here and here and then de-promotionalize again only to be restored on here and here. It's not possible to improve a promotional article if it cannot be changed, especially when the last AfD cited "this shouldn't stop a cleanout of the article if editors deem it to be low quality or promotional in tone.

The guideline offered above itself goes to say: [Sources except]: routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, routine...reviews, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization .... excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases. Overdetailed advertising and if we removed even half or close to it of this article, we would have nothing but bare claims of borderline significance, not notability. WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not catalog, WP:Not promotion, WP:Not advocate and WP:SPIP all apply and here's why:

  • The first paragraph, "distributes foods to consumers that is sourced from local farmers and fishermen" violates WP:SPIP: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article
  • The second section, "meeting with local farmers at their farms to acquire prospective producers to work with the company. Foods purveyed include meats, vegetables, breads, eggs, milk and various organic foods, which are ordered online and delivered using electric vans" also violates WP:SPIP's independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence
  • As for the last section, an educational campaign, see WP:CORP's section here saying Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD, and the article does not have a promotional tone. Content restored in the article went through the DYK process and was a DYK entry entry on Wikipedia's Main Page (see the DYK nom page). Furthermore, neither the DYK reviewer, two other participants in the DYK discussion, nor the promoter interpreted this content as promotional. Below are some source examples. North America1000 05:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get SwisterTwister's argument and would normally agree. An article based on WP:SPIP is a valid candidate for deletion. However I am just not entirely convinced that the sources are advertorials or product placements. Maybe they are, maybe not. Maybe the journalists write about it, because they are customers and think people should know about it. Maybe they don't like supermarkets. We just don't know. I'd take a reasonable doubt approach in favour of the defendant - so to speak. Also, if there is disagreement between editors about the tonality of an article with repeated changes, this does not make it a candidate for AfD - we'd have to AfD the article of every other politician or celebrity where changes are frequent and sometimes contentious (not implying this happens here). This is just a case for community vigilance and consensus as part of the editing process. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the articles, and consider why in a general article about the phenomena, the editors should have devoted so much space and a large illustration to this particular example, along with discussing its details. That's the basic technique of writing advertorials. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with some high profile newspapers and online media here with some kind of compliance oversight I'd assume. UK media regulation dictates that advertorials or paid contents be clearly identified. So either they break the law in this case or they are not advertorials. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are essentially advertorials and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. The sources listed are one sided, and cover only the company owner's perspective - these are testimonials, not third party coverage. Hence, based on the sources, this topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The newspaper articles are in the business section, which is intended to speak to other business people, potential investors, and farmer-clients.
These are sources with vested interest, they are not independent sources, and therefore fails WP:V. Ben Pugh, the owner-spokesman, would like nothing better than have more farmers develop agreements with his company. So, these articles are effective for attracting investment, more agreements with farmers, more competition with supermarkets, and so on. Especially, since there is or was expansion into other UK regions. Nothing Ben Pugh says is verified by journalistic investigation.
This indicates the sources are not reliable. Hence, the topic fails GNG and WP:RS. For example he claims that farmers are getting 70 per cent, but what do the farmers say about this? Ben Pugh claims the food is low quality at supermarkets while his is fresh and high quality. How about opinions from a supermarket spokes-persons? That is a common advertising strategy that we hear in TV and Radio commercials. These are unverified claims - again these are testimonials - advertising.
The lack of independent third party sourcing shows that it fails WP:NRV, WP:ORGIND, and meets the above WP:ISNOT criteria. Also, basing the whole coverage on what Pugh says is another indicator that this topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The small blurb in the book might be OK as a source, but multiple sources are required so more than this is needed.
Another indicator that all this coverage probably came from press kits, is that they echo the same facts, without any demonstration of investigative reporting work. There is no objective evidence of notability. The tenor of the Wikipedia article doesn't matter Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I looked at the links Northamerica1000 provided. After doing so I am convinced the existing coverage is NOT made up of advertizing content masquerading as solid reporting. The idea that respect for the environment requires trying to buy food that is produced within an hour's drive of consumption is a relatively new idea. But isn't dismissing it as nonsense hype is, a failure of imagination? Contributor Steve Quinn, above, seems to be asserting that the press coverage of Farmdrop has to have been written by a conspiracy of corrupt reporters, writing straight from an advertizer's crib sheet, and tricking their poor readers into thinking they were reading an honest third party report. Occam's razor man -- didn't it occur to you that the reason all the press reports say similar things because that is the honest opinion of honest third party reporters?

    Steve Quinn asks for reporters who actually interviewed the actual farmers, to confirm the firm gives them as large a cut as the firm claims. First, if, for the sake of argument, it were necessary for these farmers to have been interviewed, if this assertion were to be repeated in a wikipedia article, we would still have a completely adequate article on a notable topic, if those passages were struck.

    Second, unlike the fair trade coffee meme, where distributors claimed consumers should be happy to pay a premium, because they paid the third world coffee producers a better deal than the big guys, THESE farmers all live close to these newspapers, and would, presumably scream blue murder, if the firm CLAIMED to pay them a lot more than they were actually paid.

    I remind Steve Quinn he and I and all the rest of us are not journalists. Rather as per, WP:VER, we rely on journalists. VER says our coverage is based on verifiability, not truth. Even if, for the sake of argument, some of us could sniff out a conspiracy that was oblivious to ordinary newspaper readers, we still have to rely on what verifiable sources say.

    I write in articles on some controversial topics. Soon after I started doing so, I found myself facing a decision. I soon found lots of instances where I found the press reporting inadequate, because it didn't agree with my personal conclusions. But, I re-read VER, and decided if I was going to comply with policy, I could either stop working on those topics, or work on them, keeping my personal conclusions to myself, while neutrally covering material written from a point of view I personally disagreed with.

    I work hard to comply with VER and WP:NPOV, when I come across RS that makes assertions I personally disagree with, and I want to be ablo to rely on everybody else doing likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to resonate what has been said above about farmers being up in arms if they read incorrect information, after some digging I found this and this from a local newspaper and a farming industry news site that look at Farmdrop as additional outlet.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is the relationship of the farmers to the company has not been described in any independent reliable sources. So we still have no idea what their view is on any of this. Wikipedia does not deal in assumping that farmers are not "crying blue murder", or that they read statements in press generated by this company.
Also, the book article says the company determines the rates it will pay, and that is all we know. The sources presented above by Jake Brockman do not characterize this relationship. Small blurbs indicate dairy farmers get 20% more from Farm Drop than the supermarket. What about all the other produce farmers? There are no detailed independent reliable sources that characterize the views of the many farmers contracted to Farm Drop - in other words, unverified.
The idea of being able to buy food within an hour's drive is not a new idea. Local food movements, which involve distributing local farm products, have been around for a number of years, as an antidote to national and globalized commercial food distribution [1], [2], [3], [4]. "Failure of the imagination" is not useful when determining whether or not an topic merits inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. Editors go by the characteristics of the sources, when validating them or invalidating them as evidence of notability. None of the sources are being dismissed as "nonsense hype" because they are what they are - first person descriptions by Mr. Pugh of his business, which makes the sources biased and failing WP:NPOV. (See my other post below for further clarity) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote below I don't follow your explanation as to why you don't accept the sources we used as independent.
You write: "The idea of being able to buy food within an hour's drive is not a new idea ... have been around for a number of years, as an antidote to national and globalized commercial food distribution." You and I draw different conclusions from the existence of firms providing similar services. If the other firms are also the subject of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, they too measure up to our inclusion critera.
You write: "Editors go by the characteristics of the sources, when validating them or invalidating them as evidence of notability." And what, exactly, do you mean by "characteristics of the sources"? Infowars is the canonical example of a bad source -- it is an organization that tries to appear like a reliable news source, but that routinely published falsehoods. Even reliable sources, even the NY Times, occasionally publish falsehoods. Even some of the best RS have found they employed plagiarists, and fantasists. Even some of the best RS occasionally publish retractions or apologies, when something has fallen short of their usual standards. We don't stop regarding these sources as RS, due to occasional lapses. So, if by "characteristics of the sources", you mean sources with a long record of unreliability, like infowars, you are correct. But if you think you or I or any other contributor is authorized to put our judgment above that of professional reporters, I think you couldn't be more wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*keep meets WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. Discussion of tone should be taken to the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) OK. I fell for that. Looked at the article in The Guardian without noticing that it is marked as an advertorial. The Guardian article and all advertorial needs to be taken out of the article. If someone does that, and still sees this as passing GNG, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I did see some of the annotations, but I'm not sure this is actually paid or influenced contents. Only the first two Guardian articles seem sponsored: i) the small business section is supported by Facebook. Here the Guardian defines "supported" contents as editorially independent. ii) the section "Live Better" is funded by Unilever. The disclaimer says that contents is editorially independent unless indicated. There is no such indicator. Besides, I would argue that Unilever's product lines are directly opposed to Farmdrop. All the other reference above look like genuine editorial and I refer to the response I gave above to DGG.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that Guardian page also says " A client whose branding appears on editorial content may have a role in suggesting what kind of topics are covered, but the commissioning editor is not obliged to accept ideas from the funder"--in other words, even for "independent" content, the client selects the topic and the client suggests what specifics to cover. This in means that the Guardian would not have written the article at all unless it had been paid to do so. That in effect means that what is said is reliable, but WP notability rests on the decision of a RS to cover a topic. That decision is made by paying the newspaper, and is thus useless for notability. Its good to have such a clear statement of why these arenot usable for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, not sure... Isn't every new site sort of sponsored with banner ads? Same for the main evening news with car ads just before and after (and depending on where you are, in between). If we remove articles that are claimed to be editorially independent by news organisations that are otherwise considered "top notch" as source, where do we stop? pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding this The Guardian source, The Guardian's "The Live Better Challenge" is funded by Unilever, but the article itself is not about the The Live Better Challenge. At the bottom of the article it states, "The Live Better Challenge is funded by Unilever; its focus is sustainable living. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature." However, this article is not labelled as an advertisement feature. North America1000 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you, Northamerica1000 for removing that Guardian "supported" content. I have just checked enough of the other sources on the page to state that page meets WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks for the ping. Based on the sources on the page, this definitely meets WP:GNG. The coverage doesn't seem to be trivial to me in the way that the guideline defines it and I think there's enough independent coverage for there to be an article here. Nomader (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a directory-like listing on a private company that's not yet encyclopedically relevant. For example, this article in the Guardian is based on an interview:
  • “It was absolutely a light bulb moment,” says Pugh, “In the internet era value chains with a middleman are completely inappropriate. Ten years ago fine, but not now.” Etc.
The coverage is not intellectually independent of the subject and literally tells the company's origin story. Sourcing lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely PR driven. 20 employees is strongly suggestive of WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many active Wikipedia editors share Geo Swan's perspective on writing according to sources, including me. It is not a unique perspective.
There is no evidence that I have engaged in or ever supported conspiracy theories during my eight years as an editor on Wikipedia. So, saying that I see conspiracy theories is way off base. I am assuming good faith and letting it slide this time, because maybe the assumption is that I don't know what I am talking about. However, the fact is, I do know what I am talking about.
My previous post describes a situation that is known as Churnalism. The reason for bringing this into this discussion will be apparent. This is a phenomenon that has occurred since the early years of the new millennium and is well known. Shrinking newspaper budgets; shrinking TV and radio newsroom budgets; and the commensurate slashing of newsroom staff; have caused a noticeable uptick in generating increasing percentages of the "news" that we see and read sourced from PR materials sent out by commercial businesses, with no other sources.
This is why we are seeing article after article, pertaining to Farmdrop, sourced only by Mr. Pugh (a co-owner) for so-called "facts". They are not independent assessments of the topic. This means that each one of these articles is as the nom has noted: various sections of the WP:ISNOT policy are applicable, and WP:SPIP also applies. So does the inability to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. It has nothing to do with honest reporters' opinions, which would not be acceptable as reliable sources anyway. As opinions, they are not demonstrating objective criteria to assess this topic.
And so, all of the above discount the possibility of verification. So yeah, "verifiability not truth" (as was noted) is the Wikipedia norm, and these sources fail WP:V for the above reasons. Other Wikipedia editors are aware of this "churnalism" phenomenon. I suppose an article on "Churnalism" is one piece of evidence of this. There is also the issue of Video news releases. There are also other editors in this discussion who are aware of this phenomenon. So, possible attempts at gaslighting (if that is what is happening) by claiming an editor sees conspiracy theories is not a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Steve Quinn, thanks for linking my name. I am curious about your interpretation of VER. Perhaps I could understand it if you tried to explain it in more detail?
You wrote: "This is why we are seeing article after article, pertaining to Farmdrop, sourced only by Mr. Pugh (a co-owner) for so-called "facts". They are not independent assessments of the topic." And I had previously written: "...if, for the sake of argument, it were necessary for these farmers to have been interviewed ... we would still have a completely adequate article on a notable topic, if those passages were struck." -- Even if your doubts about Pugh were policy compliant, they would not be grounds for deletion.
So, if, for the sake of argument, Pugh had been lying to the various reporters, as to the cut the farmers received, why is that relevant to us wikipedia contributors? We are not journalists. We are not detectives. Aren't your personal doubts about Mr Pugh's claims, well, sorry, completely irrelevant? If you got us to go along with your personal doubts, wouldn't we all be violating original research? Aren't you, basically, asking the rest of us to let your doubts over-ride the professional judgement of multiple professional reporters?
Those reporters DO attribute the information about the cut Pugh said he gave farmers to Pugh. That is just the caution and professionalism of good experienced reporters. Each of those reporters could have decided "I am an experienced reporter. My interview with Pugh makes me think I have to take more time, and verify from actual farmers he pays them the cut he claims." Why didn't they do that? You seem to be suggesting they just weren't smart enough to have those doubts, while you have such an acute sense of who is a liar that you can detect lies merely through reading newspaper articles.
Here is an alternate explanation you seem to be overlooking is that these reporters each weighed the possibility that Pugh was lying, and each independently concluded interviewing a couple of farmers would be a big fat waste of time.
I also not sure I understand your interpretation of independence, of WP:SPIP. Don't we consider our reliable sources reliable because we trust the professional scientists who write in science journals, the professional historians who write in history journals, and the professional reporters and their editors who control what is published in newspapers to be able to exercise professional judgment? Aren't we supposed to trust that, through their experience, and training, they can evaluate unreliable biased primary sources, and reach reasonable, independent conclusions? Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking evidence of the farmers' experience from the sources, if those had been there in the first place, would exactly be grounds for article deletion based on WP:PROMO, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND. The majority of farmers and their experience has not been included in the sources. But that is not even the point, it is just an example to provide contrast. Any outside persons who can give perspective on FarmDrop operations and business relations, which has been reliably published, would demonstrate the Wikipedia article has been constructed from a balanced and neutral view per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But these are not there. Hence the sources fail WP:NPOV and, hence, WP:V.
Notability requires verification (per WP:NRV) by significant coverage in sources intellectually independent of each other, independent of the topic - is also why the sources fail WP:V. I never said Pugh was lying. I never said anyone was or is lying. As a source that is not independent of the topic, Mr. Pugh is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards. This is not my invention. It has nothing to do with me. It doesn't even mean I have doubts about what he is saying. I would appreciate it if you stop trying to make this personal, as in my personal doubts and so on. Also, you have managed to invert the meaning of original research. I am not asking anyone to do anything. Where do you see me asking a question of other editors to do accept anything? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read the article on "Churnalism" and maybe some of the sources. Also, Video news releases and some of those sources could provide invaluable insight. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve Quinn, I already read the Churnalism article. Sorry, I regard it as a complete waste of time. Because you made such a big deal about it I went back and read it a second time.
Pugh is not reliable source? Sure, anything Pugh WROTE would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. But we are not relying on what Pugh wrote, to establish Farmdrop's notability. What you don't seem to understand is that when reliable, experienced reporters interview someone, we trust that honest reliable reporters will apply their experience and good judgement to what that they read, to what they are told. What they write are what we consider a WP:SECONDARY source.
Even if, for the sake of argument, someone fooled some honest, reliable reporters to write something that you or I somehow KNEW wasn't true, that would be irrelevant. What the authoritative source wrote is verifiable. That is all policy requires.
The Churnalism article is not policy. It is not a wikipedia guideline. It is not even a wikipedia essay.
The Churnalism article is about a meme that reliable sources have written about. It is verifiable that reliable sources have written about this meme. That makes Churnalism notable enough to merit an article here.
Yes, I understand you seem to have chosen to place strong faith in the Churnalism meme. You are absolutely free to believe it, as strongly as you wish, in your personal life. And I am free to regard it as something with just a tiny grain of truth, surrounded by a lot of wild exaggeration. Could you please stop pointing to it, in wikipedia discussion fora, as if it were a wikipedia policy or guideline? Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, Pugh is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. He is not independent of the topic, and his sole opinion is considered unreliable as a source. Being quoted touting his product (his business) is considered to be a primary source - closely associated with the topic. That has nothing to do with the reporters. These so called articles have the value of a company announcement because he is the only source (primary source).
Also, it is a common theme in business sections to quote the CEO, owner, or company spokesperson as the only source in an article. Many of these look like secondary sources because they are in a newspaper, but they are not. Churnalism is not a meme, sorry. It is a topic and a phenomenon. And it is churnalism that describes the ongoing crisis in newsrooms across the land. I never claimed it was a policy or guideline, just a fact of life in our modern media.
Its purpose here, in this AfD, is to bring evidence into the discussion, to prove the actual value or character of the sources. Then the actual character of the sources demonstrates the topic's failure to meet notability criteria. So And, I am not seeing evidence that reporters have provided a balanced and neutral view and no such evidence (in reliable sources) has been presented. The proof is in the pudding - the sources are all one sided primary sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve Quinn, could you please read more carefully. I already agreed with you that Pugh, himself, was a PRIMARY source, and his written comments do not establish notability.
I pointed out to you that there is no WP:CHURNALISM policy, there is no WP:CHURNALISM guideline. After I left my last comment here I noted, on your talk page, that an MfD decided WP:CHURNALISM should be userified. So, I repeat, could you PLEASE stop putting forward this churnalism meme as if it were an actual wikipedia policy?
Pugh's comments do not establish Farmdrop's notability. Farmdrop's notability was established when reliable sources wrote about it. I don't care if one of the sources the reporters used were interviews with Pugh, or Farmdrop documents from Pugh, because we trust experienced reporters to exercise the judgement to make sure a tricky CEO doesn't trick them into publishing a whitewash.
You write: "it is a common theme in business sections to quote the CEO, owner, or company spokesperson as the only source in an article."
Really? Churnalism is a Fringe idea. The churnalism article may cite a couple of RS that make this assertion. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. This is simply not a widely accepted idea, either here, or in the real world. Isn't that why the MfD chose to userify WP:CHURNALISM?
You seem to be asserting that when a newspaper article only quotes one source, we know the reporter did no other research than to interview that source. We don't know that. There are lots of kinds of research that don't show. How much research should a responsible reporter do, for a story like this? Should a newspaper's business reporter walk over to their newspaper's food critic's desk, and ask them to confirm Pugh's assertions are credible? Would that be enough research?
Here is a thought experiment for you. Cast your mind back to the 1991 Gulf War. After Iraq invaded Kuwait a coalition spent almost a year amassing overwhelming firepower on Iraq's borders, prior to the big counter-attack. During this build-up period Iraq used its fleet of SCUD short-range ballistic missiles to attack Israel. SCUD attacks on Israel were reported on by every news agency. And those news reports described how US Patriot air-defense missiles were extremely successful at shooting the SCUDs down.
Personally, I was skeptical. In 1985 I had been one of hundreds of Canadian who had written to a Parliamentary committee that had gone across Canada seeking input on whether Canada should become a partner in the USA's Strategic Defense Initiative, Ronald Reagan's fry-in-the-sky ballistic missile defense system. I'd researched this issue, and understood what a difficult project this was, and how primitive current efforts were. I found a greater than 90 percent success rate extremely hard to swallow.
However, if the wikipedia had been around, in 1991, and I had worked on the SCUD versus Patriot skirmishes, I think policy would have required me to keep my doubts to myself, and rely solely on the coverage in reliable source.
After the war a respected Professor of Engineering at MIT, named Ted Postol, published a detailed analysis of what had really gone on. His conclusions? First, by analyzing Israeli TV recordings of the tracks of the incoming SCUDs, he found that rather than successfully intercepting and disabling over 90 percent of the SCUDs they had countered less than five percent. The Patriot air-defense system was designed to automatically detect and counter incoming enemy jets. It was not designed to be left running continuously for days or weeks at a time.
Those of us who took a serious computer science course had that course spend some time on "numerical analysis", where we would have learned that there were certain kinds of predictable numerical errors that creep into computer programs, without regard to whether they use integer calculations or floating point calculations. There are complicated techniques to partially counter those numerical errors. But, since the Patriot computers weren't supposed to run for days or weeks at a time, the programmers hadn't compensated for a cumulative drift. The result was that a Patriot computer that had been running too long would explode Patriot interceptors to a location too far off the trajectory of the incoming SCUD to have even a slim chance of damaging it.
So, why were the SCUDs failing? They failed because Iraq's rocket scientists had been terrified of Saddam Hussein. He was happy when the USSR gave him a fleet of SCUD missiles. Disappointed when he learned they lacked the range to hit the targets in Israel he really wanted to hit. So he ordered Iraqi rocket scientists to figure out a way to extend the missiles' range. In order to add more rocket fuel they reduced the size of the explosive payload, in the nose. Iraqi rocket scientists either didn't realize, or were afraid to tell Saddam, that while adding rocket fuel would enable the missile to the Israeli target, it had the unintended consequence of making it aerodynamically unstable when it re-entered the atmosphere. Because they Lacked the weight in the nose of Soviet rocket scientists' initial design the missiles did not zip to the target pointy end first. They tumbled, and spun, and were ripped apart, before they hit the ground.
Prior to the deceitful boasts about Patriot success being publicly debunked by an RS policy would have required us to only cover the reports of their success.
So how does this relate to your claims that Pugh's comments do not establish notability? The press releases from the Patriot's manufacturer would not establish the notability of the Patriot system, just as a press release from Pugh would not establish Farmdrop's notability. But when ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all reported the Patriot's were an enormous success, if their reportings main named sourceq, or only named source, was the Patriot manufacturer, their reporting would have established Patriot's notability, if it hadn't already been established.
Complying with the central point in WP:VER requires us to ignore our private doubts about the reliability of our reliable sources.
Further, I think that, generally speaking, if a reporter is a specialist in a particular field, then it isn't necessarily a problem if they publish an article based on a single source, because all their previous work in that field, all their previous research, meant that they were already capable of bringing a nuanced and informed judgement to the new source. There is a legal scholar named Lyle Denniston, who is the most significant contributor to a website called Scotusblog. Some uninformed contributors try to excise places were Denniston has been used as a reference, because the site where his opinions were published is "just a blog". In spite of its name it is not what we meant when we generally prohibited using blogs as RS. Denniston is widely respected that journalists who regularly report on legal matters routinely defer to his opinion, quote new opinions from Denniston as news. Denniston routinely reports on the implications of new developments in significant cases that are based on a single new source, like that a significant case is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently came across a similar advertisement with all those signs except this article is older than the other one and about a larger company; I agree that our policies, even years ago, were always clear any promotion is unacceptable, it's only now that we've enforced it stronger, like we should. I'm not persuaded by the Keep votes which aren't showing any consideration to our policies on that or how it should be given a pass. What I saw 10 years ago, was a lot worse, we had a mindset of what an encyclopedia article should include, and now is the time to act better on it. Churnalism is indeed what the sources say, and our article on that subject speaks about it and, like with WP:Notability, it's the source's weight that counts, not name. I also agree the article is still as promotional as before, all that was removed was something here and there. DYK has never been relevant in any AfD I've seen to where it superseded policy, all it means is that DYK nominates anything a willing person wants to approve and it's a thin straw against what the community should actually impose regarding our articles. It's smart that we reconsider anything from before since they were not dealt with like they should've and, an advertisement in whatever form is an excellent step. A comment above says "professional reporters and their editors who control what is published in newspapers to be able to exercise professional judgment" but this isn't actually how the news media works, they also consider their own business perspective of it, which is public relations and press releases. Trampton (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have repeatedly revisited this article over the last few days and revisited the sources and I am now convinced that this is advertising, but clever advertising. The lack of critical content, the constant references to "Ben Pugh said...." has a strong connotation that all, or almost all the references are based on Press releases, probably personalised press releases adapted to its intended audience, but not independent sources. If he is that good at promoting his image, then no doubt the company will thrive and perhaps it will then become notable. At present it is an advertising piece that is to early in the company's life to be notable.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Geo Swan, WP:TL;DR regarding that last post. In any case, I never said Churnalism is a policy or guideline. Even after explicitly noting that in my last post, it seems you want to falsely attribute this claim to me. False attributions, of which there are now a number, fall under WP:NPA. Also, please quote the passage where I said Churnalism is a policy or guideline. You are the one who brought it up. Sorry, churnalism is not a fringe idea. Do you have any reliable sources that says Churnalism is a fringe idea?
I notice you are trying to conflate the essay WP:Churnalism with the mainstream phenomenon and mainspace article Churnalism. The essay might be fringe, or more likely a minority view per WP:NPOV, but that is not the same as the main space article entitled Churnalism. Wikipedia doesn't deal in hypotheticals, it deals in what published reliable sources say, and you are welcome to post them here. All my comments are anchored in Wikipedia policy and elucidated by guidelines GNG, WP:CORP, and so on. Also, I think Geo Swan is trying to discourage other ivotes by extending the above thread with extensive off-topic digressions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first thing I was thinking about seeing the article was: yes, an article about "boerderijdrop" (Liquorice in the shape of farm-animals and -buildings). It was a disappointment to see that it is a good-willing rather recently started delivery-service with plans to grow. I have no problems with a new company wanting to grow but I do have a problem with companies using Wikipedia as advertising channel. The conventional (non-internet) system of farm-to-home supply is - in the Netherlands - at least 25 years old. So, not even the idea is novel. And this article is clearly an attempt to grow its market. To my opinion, it is clever designed and worded SPAM. The Banner talk 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article still feels promotional. The coverage presumably only exists because of a well-run PR campaign, but there's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. With £7 million in funding, it could plausibly meet a numeric test. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki However, how is this resolving the clear view on how the sources are clear promotionalism by the company's behalf and part, and how they're not independent; this is in fact what WP:GNG says; must have significant independent coverage, and....[not] press releases or notices". Also, as the policy cited above, WP:Not promotion is exactly why "still feels promotional" is a definite policy basis for deleting. As WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:GNG itself actually say, articles must be indeed guaranteed and must not be excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not notable to have an article, not that they may be on assertion alone. W:SPIP:
  • Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter

If our own notability statements are clear on what is still considered promotion or for promotion, we can't make exceptions because the company seems important, as importance is not relevant here. The comment "presumably only exists because of a well-run PR campaign" is exactly why we must WP:NOT ADVOCATE (basic policy) their own publicity.SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources at the article, this AFD, and available on-line indicate notability. Tone, if that is an issue, is addressed through editing, not deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. on balance, I think it proba bly is notale; but I also thing the article promotional in intent, and I think that outweighs it. It is not a clear-cut decision what do do with an article intended as advertising that can be fixed. Our guidelines inherited from past years when we were less concerned about promotionalism are inconsistent. WP"NOT is basic, bit we have in the past accepted anything that could be fixed, and I athink we need to change that. It tends to be difficult here to change the letter of guidelines without unforeseen consequence, and in therefore better to adjust the interpretation. That's the basis for the deletion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I created this article, and I'm not in the business of promoting this company. The article is not "intended as advertising" or to be promotional whatsoever, and it does not have a promotional tone. My intention was to create an article about a notable company based upon what reliable sources state about it, which I did. Sorry, but the !vote above inaccurately misrepresents my intentions in entirety. North America1000 05:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mr. North America. I want to let you know what I thought when I read DGG's contribution. I didn't think he was personally attributing a promotional intent to you. His post came across as if the article on its own merits came across as promotional and as advertising without any intent by any editor. And he may not have even been saying the tone of the article is promotional. I agree that the tone of the article is not promotional. However, maybe you can agree, even without promotional wording, a Wikipedia article can, in theory, seem to be intended as advertising. And I reiterate - I am pretty sure he wasn't saying that you personally intended for this to be other than you intended - which is coverage of a topic according to guidelines and policies - even though there is disagreement between editors. Not necessary to reply if you are not inclined. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read the article 3 days ago and read it again now, and I don't see any genuine rebuttal in response to our policy's enforcement on this and policy is priority here. Same goes for 10 years ago, if like mentioned, we had been smarter. Even now, when I read it one last time, a random source or two were taken off, but it's still spam and unambiguous spam. Someone recommended improving this but it's been done before, a load of times now and no progress each time. The appropriate place to propose we should make yet another try at improving is WP:Village pump -- definitely not an AfD. Meanwhile, we'll make sure Wikipedia spam policy is enforced piece by piece. In my opinion, I do think everyone wished they would've recognized how spam is dealt with between years ago and now; it's our choice to see the light. Trampton (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farmdrop_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1253640215"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmdrop (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.