Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fordhall

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 of the debate was DELETE. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fordhall

Notability in question (Fordhall is considered by many to have been a forrunner in the organic movement and although the land does not fit exactly into the current organic standard it has been farmed without chemicals for over 50 years) NMChico24 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the point - it does not meet organic standards and the forerunner etc is an unsourced POV. BlueValour 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete In addition to failing WP:NN the article is unverified. It appears that inclusion of this article may be an effort to increase the profile of the farm which is under threat of takeover by developers. Kershner 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
• Keep

A look at http://www.fordhallfarm.com/ will confirm that there are 2900 people in the UK who have put money into this scheme and that over £575,000 has been raised. The farm is not particularly under threat from developers but simply coming to the end of it's lease. If successful the land will be owned by all of the people who have subscribed under a community land initiative, a scheme which probably merits an entry in it's own right. National newspapers are following the progress of this in The Daily Telegraph (Weekend section) on 17th June and The Guardian (Society section) on 21st June. I have no connection with the farm (apart from I intend to buy a £50 share before 1st July) - but I do think it's an important initative and warrantentry in Wikipedia on the basis of organic farming and community land ownership issues. As this is the first entry I have ever written, I would be grateful for any help in fitting in with Wikipedia protocol rather than simply rejecting my submission

Caroline marks 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Comment If you have assembled some evidence of notability and need some help with formatting the article to include references etc., contact me on my user page. I personally find this farm to be notable, but the article currently does not assert this with satisfactory reliable sources. If it was rewritten to include such citations, I think it would be in much better shape. --DaveG12345 22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A worthy cause, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service or open web directory. I looked over the website and I don't see how this is salvageable as a wikipedia article, unfortunately Bwithh 23:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bwithh --206.11.112.251 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite Not NN, but the article is not encyclopaedic as it stands.--Runcorn 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This article contains POV and unsourced, unsubstantiated claims. BlueValour 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Content disputes such as "POV and unsourced, unsubstantiated claims" are not a reason to delete. Is clearly notable as an example of a farm trying to go organic; it is effectively a "case study". Batmanand | Talk 08:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Expand to assert notability. No expansion will see my opinion alter to Delete. There are no incoming links of any calibre, and the article is unwikified. No expansion has happened, nor does ot seem likely. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. I agree, it's a good cause and it's caught some local attention by its fundraising pleas, but it's still nn. No sources given, POV questions, and unsubstantiated claims on their face - no sources or references for verification. Also, the author states she's going to buy a share - I'd also wonder about advocacy and advertising. Tychocat 09:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as non notable. The website offers nothing to show any notability. Nuttah68 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, unverified and unsourced. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but tag for cleanup. I believe this is a notable farm, but the article lacks WP:V. Eventual rename of article to Fordhall Farm might be appropriate too. --DaveG12345 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - there are thousands of fully organic farms around the world. None of the statements in the article are sourced so may or may not be true. What makes this notable out of all the many other /verififable/ organic farms? BlueValour 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what I have been able to find out, I believe it would be possible to produce a properly verifiable article about this farm, although there may be a slight issue with it being the subject of an ongoing news story in the UK. I do not intend to research this material myself though. I am just noting that the required material, IMO, seems to exist. Obviously, as the article stands, it fails WP:V. Hence it needs cleanup. --DaveG12345 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree it may be verifiable but, despite this AfD nothing has come forward. It is up to the author and subsequent editors to produce a stand-up case and they haven't. The UK is stuffed full of organic farms - the shelves in my supermarket groans under their produce. BlueValour 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If it's notable, even if the article itself contains nothing that verifies its notability, then it should not be deleted. Also, user "Caroline marks" above does make a statement of intent to update the article. I hear what you're saying (I feel the same way sometimes about high schools on WP), but I stand by my original comments. --DaveG12345 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (still Delete) Articles which cannot be verified and have serious doubts about their notability are exactly the type of content which *should* be deleted. If a legitimate encyclopedic article can be written on this topic, then someone should write it. This article is not encyclopedic and fails WP:NN and WP:V. Wikipedia is not a place to list every organic farm. If it was, I could easily add 10000+ American farms of larger size and greater contribution to the economy than this one. Everything has a story and telling those stories has a place in society, but not in an encyclopedia. Kershner 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and does not assert it either. The most notable assertion is "Fordhall is considered by many to have been a forrunner in the organic movement", which is third person "I heard about it on the bus" and unsourced. Its Google hits are mostly blog entries in a grass-roots campaign. It does, however, have this one article in The Telegraph[1], but it is a "human interest" story, like one of many non-notable such stories in many newspapers. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 1 July 2006 (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.