Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Hope Publishers

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers

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

Not notable. Sources given are not significant coverage of the actual article topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one mention in a reliable source offered (The New York Times) is passing and trivial; I have blocked the creator for a username vio. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from WP:ORG "it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." While some may argue that the only notable source listed is The New York Times there are several other archived references listed, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost clearly states the creator is not required to make them available. Also in regards to the The New York Times article being passing and trivial, it seems to state the publisher in question received an award at the United Nations from Kenny Rogers. BrianMcKinney1 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — BrianMcKinney1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep SEEDS is an organization and publication that has a long and continuous history of involvement in issues related to global food poverty. It seems quite obvious to me that it fulfills the Wikipedia "notability" requirement. Respectfully, H Steve Gardner (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)— H Steve Gardner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just for clarity, this user is the same one who previously operated under User:SeedsEditor, correct? Snow (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independant coverage. Plus, there appears to be a copyvio issue with at least some parts of the article (the lead, for example, is almost a word-for-word copy of the blurb on any Seeds of Hope publication). Yunshui 雲‍水 07:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio issues can be addressed by reworking the content to be less of a replication while maintaining the salient points and adding appropriate attribution, so is not really grounds for deletion. But the lack of independent sources is another matter. There is the one local newspaper (the Waco Tribune) which has apparently covered the organization several times, but whether this is sufficient for notability is debatable. The other sources are all either not suitable to our needs for verifying sources or don't reference the subject ("Seeds of Hope Publishing") directly. I'm leaning towards delete myself, but I was hoping we'd have more input from the contributing editor so that we might be able to address these issues and perhaps save the article. Perhaps I scared them off with my question since they've already been asked to change their name and had the issue of COI broached; they might have felt they were treading on inappropriate ground again by commenting here, though of course there is nothing wrong with their participating on the AfD so long as they are upfront with their previous role in the article and follow policy in their arguments. Snow (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2012 (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.