Talk:Lundberg Family Farms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy Deletion

As stated in the New York Times article cited in the discussed article, Lundberg Family Farms is the top brand for organic rice in the United States.

Mr. Lundberg's family has been a pioneer in the agriculture movement to protect the environment, and it produces the No. 1 brand in the domestic organic rice market.

The New York Times is a good source for notability. How many is necessary? OptimistBen 01:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's enough of an assertion of notability, and I've removed the speedy deletion tag. However, the article may still be taken to WP:AFD for wider discussion. The NY Times article is a solid source. I'd say if you can find another, the article would be in good shape. Take a look at WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that should suffice for the time being, and hopefully I can add more later. I wish some of these deleters would spend time on something more productive. Is there any I can leave feedback for admins? At least this Aecis guy gave me a notification -- the last admin who deleted an article of mine never even had the balls to do that. Which seems to me quite destructive, and I think that guy (DarkFalls) should not be an admin, or at least should learn basic courtesy. OptimistBen 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good; nice progress.

There isn't any centralized process for leaving feedback - just talk pages. Regarding the other article that got deleted, another editor tagged it before DarkFalls deleted it. The person tagging it is usually the one to provide notice to the creator, though it's not actually required. Keep in mind that a lot of articles get added to Wikipedia every day, and it's tough for the volunteers to keep up.--Kubigula (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kubigula that the article as it stands asserts the notability of the subject, and belongs on Wikipedia. I've removed one or two sentences that were a bit boardspeak pr, but other than that, the article is fine, and the NY Times reference is indeed solid. Nice job, Ben. As far as giving feedback to admins is concerned, there are always user talk pages. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although as far as not getting a message before that last deletion, I don't think there's a good excuse. As far as feedback on the Talk pages -- it is too easily edited and buried. I'd like to see some place where people can post things which can only be edited by themselves. And another place where past disciplinary actions and suspicious activities are listed, e.g. JoeBob was found to be a sockpuppet with this evidence on this day; JoeBob was found to be editing from this office on this article, ect. Corporate abuse of Wikipedia will probably only increase in the future.

Also, have you guys noticed something strange about the cite web template? Look at my two major references. They're coded in exactly the same order. The only difference is that the NYT article has an author and the NFM article has no author. But in one the date is put near the beginning, and on the other the date is put near the end. Under no system does this make sense. In APA it always looks more like the first, and in Chicago the date always goes near the end. As a workaround, I suppose I'll list NFM as an author rather than a publisher as a workaround, but this should be looked into. How could I fix this? OptimistBen 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)