Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardens Alive!

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens Alive!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG with a surfeit of local and trivial refs. It seems like an overactive PR director got write-ups in all the local freebies. The Bloomberg Businessweek ref is a standard company snapshot, and The Oregonian ref is a one-line note about an award. A major contributor to the article also appears to be a COI. Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - First of all, I wrote 95% of the article and I do not have a COI. I know you meant the article creator and not me, but please get your facts straight before making such statements. Basically none of his text still exists, maybe a sentence or two at most. Now, on to the relevant question - notability. The article already has 15 sources - about 10 are both not local (the company is based in Indiana, not Oregon, and there is actually no consensus that local sources are invalid anyway) and completely independent of the subject. Several are quite extensive (multiple pages); I find it amusing that a source that is not necessary to supports anything (Bloomberg, part of a multi-ref line) and a source that supports one whole line of the article (Oregonian) were singled out in an attempt to make the sourcing look like crap, while the extensive sources (which are decidedly not local) were ignored. And, for the record I only used about 10% of the sources I found.

In addition to to abundance of sources, the company is clearly important in their industry, and is not at all some local company. They operate about a dozen subsidiaries, 4 of which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They employ 1000 people during peak months - an enormous amount for a catalog company. They control a huge percentage of the seed catalog industry - almost twice the sales of the next 4 largest companies combined: [1]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a "standard profile" at Bloomberg is far from meaningless. It is not just stats, but rather includes an editorial description of the company. Bloomberg does not waste their editorial time writing up random/small companies, but rather it does write-ups on important industry players. I would guess the vast majority of the companies they have profiled are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First I want to state I have no relationship with this company or article. I saw it come up on the AFD listing. I read over the article and references. While I did think there was a good bit of semi-promotionalism in spots, I found that overall the article subject is covered over numerous verifiable reputable resources. In my view the piece in Bloomberg alone would make the article achieve notability, and in combination with other references in the article make it more than pass WP:GNG. The company itself is sort of a conglomerate now, and I can understand why Bloomberg did a piece on it. I have updated the article removing some of the cruft and puffiness that made the article seem semi-promotional at times. Some material was too intricate in detail for the average reader and gave the impression it was bragging about all the acquisitions. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - I don't see it. The 11 sources: [1], [2], and [3] are "Multichannel Merchant", which, as far as I can tell is a marketing company that publishes things about your company if you pay them. It's a little unclear, and I'm happy to be corrected, but it reads and looks like PR. [4] is primary. [5] is a brief mention (name the company, give their motto, been around more than a decade, excellent reputation). [6] is ok. a little coverage in a local pub which cites Multichannel Merchant. [7] is routine local business coverage (a store is closing, it's owned by Gardens Alive). [8] is the Bloomberg snapshot. [9] is a brief mention. [10] is a brief mention (granted, for winning a local award -- by local I mean coverage by a local rather than national-scale source). [11] is a trade organization award catalog type thing. If these constituted the entirety of sources about the subject it would be an easy delete -- all PR, routine industry business news, brief mentions -- but while I didn't turn up anything great it seems like there's more. Especially if, as above, they're one of the biggest in the seeds industry. I'd also add that while it may not have been written by someone with a COI, it has an "awards" style section and links prominently to an ad in the external links for crying out loud. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong about Multichannel Merchant. It is an industry publication with an extensive history (including a print publication) and an editorial staff, not a pay-for-play operation. For example, they publish negative stories [2][3][4][5] where the company refuses to comment. Here are a few of today's headlines:

"USPS 1Q Shipping and Package Volume Increased 12.8%" - the post office surely is not paying for coverage

"Kate Spade Shutting Down Kate Spade Saturday Business" - a negative article that surely the company didn't ask to be published

"RadioShack's Chapter 11 Filing Includes Restructuring Plan" - Radioshack is not promoting their bankruptcy

"Possible Shutdown Looms Over West Coast Ports as Two Sides Engage in Brinksmanship" - no specific company would be paying for this

A reputation section is a standard part of an article - its not my fault Garden's Alive's press has been all positive. The "ad" in the external links section was an oversight on my part (i.e. accidentally left behind when cleaning up the original creator's article) and has now been removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt you re: Multichannel Merchant. I've struck my !vote above accordingly. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is sufficiently sourced as is, but there are many more in-depth articles available on Highbeam, so the article could even be expanded. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2015 (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.