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 There is a clear consensus for keeping here, given the article's vast improvement. Several sources now exist to assert notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Orchards[edit]

Rogers Orchards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No evidence of notability for this farm - it's just a large-ish commercial fruit grower like tens of thousands of others and this is just a promotional article. It claims to be the largest apple producer in the state but there's no independent evidence of that, and anyway it's not enough to make it worth an encyclopedia article of its own. Fails WP:N, WP:VER andy (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Doesn't fail WP:V, not sure where the nominator is getting this - article clearly states that the claim is in fact a claim, which is how it is stated in the reference given. Anyways, weak notability gives this my weak keep status - it HAS been covered in significant, third-party sources, but not very heavily and possibly not for notability in its own right. Tan ǀ 39 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Yes, I am the author of the article. And the article details an agricultural operation that will be celebrating its 200th anniversary next year (which is pretty notable, by any measurement). Passes WP:RS without problem (New York Times coverage, hello?). The claim that this is "just a promotional article" is fairly silly since the article was intentionally written to avoid blatant marketing verbiage. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the NYT coverage wasn't specifically featuring this orchard; it was merely mentioned. I agree the article is not promotional at all, however. Tan ǀ 39 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back The Times' article cites Mr. Rogers as the head of the operation and as the president of a state trade association relating to agriculture. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. As applied to your RS statement, you are correct. I am trying to apply it to the WP:N concerns, which I think are the only concerns this article has (and remember, I voted to keep). WP:N states, "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Well, the NYT article doesn't really address this orchard in detail, I think that's clear. It might tag the last sentence of being "more than trivial", though. Let's gather some more opinions :-) Tan ǀ 39 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 200 may be notable in farming terms in the USA (I come from England where there are still a few farmers in remote areas using field patterns laid down in the late Iron Age) but this farm is not 200 yet. That's not a quibble - if 199=200 then why not 198, 197 etc? An anniversary is an anniversary. So it's perhaps the largest farm for miles and is not yet 200 - and there's no real evidence of either claim apart from one remark about its size quoted in one newspaper article. Not even the company website claims it's the biggest. There are 110 other fruit growers in the state, and lots of other states where fruit is grown, so I just don't see what's so special about this one that it needs a whole article just to itself. It's worth a paragraph at best.

BTW, "promotional" isn't the same as "blatant spam". The article lists products for sale and has a link to the company website. If the subject of the article is not notable then the article inevitably serves no other purpose, whether intentionally or not. andy (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment back I am sorry, but these comments display weak logic and potential bad faith. You cannot write an article about an agricultural concern without citing the crops that are grown - complaining about the inclusion of these facts is odd. All articles relating to a corporate entity have the corporate web site as an external link - pointing that fact out negatively here is odd. The nominator's residency in the UK and the state of British agriculture has no relevancy to this discussion - raising these points is odd. The article is actually a stub that was intentionally kept at stub length because anything longer would look like spam. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pick holes in my arguments by all means but please do not accuse an editor of bad faith unless you mean it and can support it. Anyway, what's "potential" bad faith? You've been watching Minority Report, haven't you? andy (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the notability references are not about the farms. With every one it seems to be "quick, we're doing an article to do with farming and need a soundbite!". From what I can read 2 of the 4 articles seem to be about some kind of farming subsidy; none of them are about the operation itself. Yes, the head of the farm is president of a state trade association, but that would be considered valid in an article about him; it doesn't then lend its notability to everything else the man is associated with. Despite this, I get the gut feeling that this would be a useful and valid article to have, although I appreciate gut feelings aren't considered a valid part of WP:N. Ironholds 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep continuously operated since 1809. If it were a department store (or any other US business), there'd be no question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete Appears to marginally fail WP:CORP as the sources do not offer substantial coverage of the business itself. Brilliantine (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral per extra sources. Still though, by these standards, a ludicrous number of farms around the world could be added. Local press covers a load of things that aren't necessary encyclopedic. Brilliantine (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be an advertisement for the farm. References do not confirm notability to any great at all.Wikigonish (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Though coverage has been sparse, coverage has happened from reliable, third-party sources. The Times article is the weakest of these sources however, as it speaks more to the potential notability of the man interviewed than to the orchard itself. The other sources are local papers, and however large or small they are, the Southington Citizen and the Bristol Press are reliable sources. One issue I have that the reference after the "founded in 1809" claim doesn't support that factoid. In fact, it's simply a link to a photograph of the owners with Gov. Rell, which is a problem, as not even the caption of the photograph supports the assertion. In defense of this article, though, I must say that I find absolutely no support for some of the opposers claims that it is promotional in any way. I've seen promotional articles many times on new page patrol. This just isn't one, in any way. ^S._D.Jameson 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, forget the whole promotional thing, alright? Sorry I mentioned it. The reason for the nomination is notability which even the supporters seem to think is a bit tricky. The question is: why does this farm deserve a whole encyclopedia article of its own? Why this farm and not the one next door? andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe those farms should be included. I don't necessarily think so; I'm just trying to keep you neutral to the whole thing. This discussion was definitely needed, so don't take our "keep" votes as some sort of invalidation of your work and opinions. I've nominated plenty of articles for deletion and have been shouted down, some rightfully so, some not (IMO). Don't worry about the promotional thing, either. None of this is personal :-) Tan ǀ 39 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We're on the same wavelength (but maybe different phases). The thing is, in the absence of a more subject-specific decision-making tool, WP policy on notability is pretty clear - multiple, independent, reliable sources. IMHO if there's a hoo-ha in all the major local papers next year about how amazing it is that a farm has reached 200, that's notability. I don't know if it's amazing - it doesn't amaze me - so we should wait until people start shouting about it. Maybe 250 is amazing and 200 is just so-what. Farms tend to last longer than High Street businesses. Anyway, in the meantime it's simply not 200 and there doesn't seem to be any other basis of notability. It's, well, just a fruit farm! andy (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is just a fruit farm! If that is your argument for deletion, may I remind you that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE is NOT policy? In view of your last statement and your repeatedly shifting arguments (It is promotional...oh, it's not promotional...oh, its age isn't notable...oh, its age can be notable if we wait a year), I respectfully request the withdrawal of this nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with that Tan temper, Eco. It takes a lot of practice to use it effectively ;-) I don't see anything but good faith from this user. He didn't say he didn't like the fruit farm, he's implying that it's not notable enough for inclusion, which is the same argument that all the opposition is boiling down to. I don't think this should be withdrawn; there's clearly some delete opinions. Tan ǀ 39 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco - I respectfully request that you actually read the comments you are criticising - "WP policy on notability is pretty clear - multiple, independent, reliable sources" is mentioned by Andy above, which is policy. This is what matters. The sourcing is not enough to justify the article. Brilliantine (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. As it happens I'm a vegetarian. I like fruit and fruit farms. But nobody has yet convinced me that this one is not run-of-the-mill. andy (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only covered in one reliable source (the bristol press) (see below). the first reference is not an article and the ny times is just a mention, it is not the subject of the article. wp:rs requires coverage in multiple reliable sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No, WP:N requires multiple sources. WP:RS is a discussion on determining the reliability of any one source. Tan ǀ 39 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry, what i actually meant was wp:v, which also requires multiple sources. i deem this as more significant as wp:v is a policy compared with wp:n which is a guideline. thanks for pointing out my mistake though :) Jessi1989 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, WP:V doesn't "require" two sources, it is the policy that dictates that all facts must be sourced, period. WP:N is honestly the guideline you are fishing for. Tan ǀ 39 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wp:v says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources", i read that as requiring more than one source. which this article now has so i've changed my vote. ;) Jessi1989 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has two reliable sources, including the Southington Citizen, just for the record. ^S._D.Jameson 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the southington citizen link seems to be just a photo... i think you need an article covering the subject. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep sorry for the change but multiple reliable sources have now been found. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Correct Jessi is correct - as luck would have it, the online copy changed on me and it is just the photo and not the actual article. There is a full article that is in the hard copy, of which I still have a copy (the article that inspired this entry). I updated the reference to cite the hard copy edition of this newspaper (Vol. 5, Number 32, page 1) that has the text relating to Rogers Orchards. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep it's a valid stub with room to grow. I see coverage in more than the Bristol Press here and here and I think it's nearly 200 year history means there's more to be found. TravellingCari 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Keep The orchards were described as a popular family farm. In the week of August 14, 2006, it was named New England Orchard-of-the-Week. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So presumably there were 51 other top New England orchards that year, and a further 104 since then? Come on, it's an industry promotion not a national award! andy (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, your points were made (and remade, in a couple of cases). Why don't we both just step back and let the other people in the community offer their opinions? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a debate. We talk. :) andy (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, open conversation and dialogue is always welcome in AFD. However, see WP:WABBITSEASON for a discussion on "repeated arguments"--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New References Oh, a new references added: "Food Lovers' Guide to Connecticut," by Patricia Brooks, Lester Brooks, Google Books and one from the Hartford Courant. The Southington Citizen referene was also fixed, since the online edition is now photo-only (the hard copy is cited). Ecoleetage (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Article greatly improved since this nomination with a number of new and reliable references. Copyedited by me just recently and ready to go. --Poeticbent talk 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple references from indepependent and reliable sources have substantial coverage of this orchard, satisfying WP:N. Peel away any spam, cut away any bad spots, and there is a tart and aromatic article here right to the core. (You can tell I've been reading about the Paula Red apples they grow). Edison (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep - Some of the sources' correlation with facts (as said above) seem questionable, but I feel this article passes WP:N. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the multiple reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The points on the article sources are well-taken, but the rush to delete this stub is a mistake. 98.216.59.172 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep this ones a no brainer as the article is shaped at the moment, it is well referenced and the company is obviously notable, if i bought something from them i'd like to be able to look them up here, let this one sprout who knows it might a featured article someday, more sources and content are the only consequence here.^MY♥_INchile 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting fact. It looks like there's a growing consensus that this fruit farm is notable because it's so big and so old. Well, two minutes on Google produced Lyman Orchards - also a Connecticut fruit farm but four times the size and dating from 1742, nearly three generations older. Somebody should write an article about it... assuming it's notable... andy (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop. Your edits here are becoming pointy, and completely unhelpful. If you feel that Orchard deserves an article, write it. Otherwise, mention of it doesn't belong here. ^S._D.Jameson 00:31, 13 August 2008 (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.