Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleaners

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gleaners

No notable reason for inclusion. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG in any form. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google even narrowed down to ‘gleaner food bank indianapolis 2009’ yields over 4000 results. There are scores of articles covering this org , ive added one to the article. Hunger is an increasingly notable issue due to the recession and recent trends in agriculture. The Colonel will be hearing about this! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'gleaner food bank indianapolis 2009' shouldn't yield anything for this Gleaners food bank in Jackson, Mississippi as Indianapolis is a long way from Jackson, Mississippi. In fact, Google hit only has 1 reliable news source, that being a local based television station. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, i've changed the vote from strong keep to keep, i still think charities should be teated lenianty. Maybe we should move the artilce to Gleaners (Jackson, Mississippi) to make way for the more noteable Gleaners? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with moving it if it is kept but I do disagree with "charities should be treated leniently" because our policies for inclusion (WP:NN, WP:ORG, etc.) don't end with "...except charities". - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. However IMO its not clear that only wlbt should count as a reliable secondary source. Even if it were, WP:ORG says the occasional exception is allowed and gives an alternative meaning of notable as "worthy of being noted". The org isnt a sexy front line service provider which perhaps explains the lack of abundant coverage in secondary sources and yourself not being aware of it. But it does provide important support to over 60 front line service providers who help vulnerable people. Its with cases like this that our encyclopaedia can be especially valuable by aggregating data on worthy subjects to create articles providing information that cant be found in one place anywhere else. So for a number of reasons , now the articles been improved following the ADF nom, there seems to be a good case for keeping it? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My ears are burning. :) This organisation does indeed seem quite notable and their work seems laudable - like the ARS of food charity. We shall have little difficulty improving the article so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passing WP:ORG per available sources for citing and expansion. Not being fully sourced is no reason for deletion if such are available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? There's only 1 notable source found. Can you point to some? Yes, if you do a Google search just for the term "Gleaners", you do come up with many.. but they are all for a foodbank of the same name in Indianapolis, Indiana - not this one in Jackson, Mississippi. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe we simply have different search techniques. The article has now been cleaned up and further sources added. thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You added 3 "new" sources. One of them is nothing but a Dun & Bradstreet business listing. As for the other 2, are you saying you have the paid access for the newsbank source and the accessmylibrary source and that both of them speak of this Gleaners? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dun & Bradstreet added as proper WP:V of WP:ORG status, per policy. Are you saying you will not or cannot visit a public library? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What I'm saying is that this organization is not notable. Using 2 "must pay for to access" sources, and only 1 free local TV station report as a source does not a notable organization make. As to the Dun & Bradstreet ref, it does nothing but verify the organization exists. It speaks nothing to their notability. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I understand you're of the opinion that this organization's being pro-active in feeding the less fortunate for 23 years is non-notable. Please note: "access-my-library" is free to anyone with a library card, which is why I asked my question above. Information available through public libraries is emminently usable on wikipedia, even is one does not wish to themselves use their services. And did I not just write that the D&B entry was used for WP:V of the organization's existance? Verifiability is a CORE POLICY, one that acts to control all interpretations of guideline, and I strive to never ignore it. And I am sorry that I am not able to be as dismissive of an in-depth report from a nationallly syndicated television station as you. There would be little point for Reuters to report in Bombay about an organization in Jackson, Mississippi. The notability and coverage is given where the event takes place: Mississippi. And of course it was "free"... all proper news sources are "free". If it were "paid" it would be a commercial. And in being dismissive of other gleaner groups, one fails to recognize the spreading of this notability accross the nation and world.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable now. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying, as well, that you have the paid access for the newsbank source and the accessmylibrary source and that both of them speak of this Gleaners? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pay to access sources are, of course, valid. Consider that books are also "pay to access". We can do research the old fashioned way, y'know. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (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.