351:- I don't see it. The 11 sources: , , and 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. is primary. is a brief mention (name the company, give their motto, been around more than a decade, excellent reputation). is ok. a little coverage in a local pub which cites Multichannel Merchant. is routine local business coverage (a store is closing, it's owned by Gardens Alive). is the Bloomberg snapshot. is a brief mention. is a brief mention (granted, for winning a local award -- by local I mean coverage by a local rather than national-scale source). 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. --—
274:
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 (
332:. 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.
273:
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
327:
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
283:
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
Knowledge (XXG) articles. They employ 1000 people during peak months - an enormous amount
399:
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.
305:
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.
170:
278:) 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.
373:. 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
328:
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
123:
164:
246:
226:
284:
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:
130:
380:
201:
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
96:
91:
17:
100:
394:"Possible Shutdown Looms Over West Coast Ports as Two Sides Engage in Brinksmanship" - no specific company would be paying for this
388:"Kate Spade Shutting Down Kate Spade Saturday Business" - a negative article that surely the company didn't ask to be published
185:
83:
152:
53:
378:
473:
40:
450:
302:
146:
285:
61:
142:
337:
454:
425:
409:
391:"RadioShack's Chapter 11 Filing Includes Restructuring Plan" - Radioshack is not promoting their bankruptcy
360:
341:
315:
296:
258:
238:
218:
65:
441:
I think the article is sufficiently sourced as is, but there are many more in-depth articles available on
202:
385:"USPS 1Q Shipping and Package Volume Increased 12.8%" - the post office surely is not paying for coverage
469:
446:
192:
36:
416:
I have no reason to doubt you re: Multichannel
Merchant. I've struck my !vote above accordingly. --—
376:
57:
209:
ref is a one-line note about an award. A major contributor to the article also appears to be a COI.
418:
405:
353:
311:
292:
178:
87:
301:
BTW, a "standard profile" at
Bloomberg is far from meaningless. It is not just stats, but rather
374:
333:
254:
234:
214:
158:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
468:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
329:
401:
307:
288:
79:
71:
206:
250:
230:
210:
117:
382:
where the company refuses to comment. Here are a few of today's headlines:
442:
462:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
113:
109:
105:
177:
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
476:). No further edits should be made to this page.
247:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
227:list of Indiana-related deletion discussions
225:Note: This debate has been included in the
445:, so the article could even be expanded. --
244:
224:
205:ref is a standard company snapshot, and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
303:includes an editorial description
369:You are completely wrong about
1:
455:06:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
426:22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
410:15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
361:05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
342:04:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
316:04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
297:03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
259:00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
239:00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
219:00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
66:03:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
493:
465:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
203:Bloomberg Businessweek
371:Multichannel Merchant
48:The result was
261:
241:
54:non-admin closure
484:
467:
447:I am One of Many
423:
421:
358:
356:
269:- First of all,
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
492:
491:
487:
486:
485:
483:
482:
481:
480:
474:deletion review
463:
419:
417:
354:
352:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
58:Spirit of Eagle
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
490:
488:
479:
478:
458:
457:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
420:Rhododendrites
397:
396:
395:
392:
389:
386:
364:
363:
355:Rhododendrites
344:
321:
320:
319:
318:
280:
279:
263:
262:
242:
199:
198:
135:
80:Gardens Alive!
74:
72:Gardens Alive!
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
489:
477:
475:
471:
466:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
437:
436:
427:
422:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
393:
390:
387:
384:
383:
381:
379:
377:
375:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
350:
349:
345:
343:
339:
335:
334:WordSeventeen
331:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
304:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
277:
272:
268:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:The Oregonian
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
464:
461:
438:
370:
347:
346:
324:
275:
270:
266:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
348:Weak Delete
325:Strong Keep
267:Strong keep
165:free images
470:talk page
402:ThaddeusB
308:ThaddeusB
289:ThaddeusB
276:Oregonian
251:• Gene93k
231:• Gene93k
37:talk page
472:or in a
443:Highbeam
124:View log
39:or in a
211:Yoninah
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
330:WP:GNG
143:Google
101:delete
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
451:talk
439:Keep
406:talk
338:talk
312:talk
293:talk
287:. --
255:talk
235:talk
215:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
50:keep
424:\\
359:\\
193:TWL
122:– (
52:. (
453:)
408:)
400:--
340:)
314:)
306:--
295:)
257:)
249:.
237:)
229:.
217:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
56:)
449:(
404:(
336:(
310:(
291:(
271:I
253:(
233:(
213:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.