Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden-Raised Bounty (GRuB)

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garden-Raised Bounty (GRuB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

good work but nn, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - I appreciate the sources added and the mission is very good but my searches found nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here and here. Also looking at the age and edit consistency of the article, there's not much weight to convince keeping the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo advert, WP:BOMBARDed with unreliable/questionable/not independent sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bombard. I was busy with other things, so I thought I'd just dump as many refs as I could find and let others sort out the good ones. There are plenty for the article to pass GNG. Being promotional is not a good AfD rationale. Strip it down to a single lead sentence if you want and add the 4 best refs and that alone should be enough for it to pass GNG. Anna F remote (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing among the refs is good enough to pass WP:GNG, it's directory listings, trivial mentions, press releases, dependent sources, and a very few pieces of very restricted local routine coverage. WP:PROMO is one of the best AfD rationales, it's not a guideline, it's Wiki policy, it says: "Those promoting causes or events...even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." This organization is a minor local common-or-garden activism group, trying to promote their cause, drumming up donations, but they are not notable. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I agree with the above that there is a bombardment of questionable sources, there does seem to be some wheat amongst the chaff, like this and this. A close eye will have to be kept on it to make sure it's not turned into advertising, but I think this squeaks over the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Reads thoroughly promotional, I'm not impressed by the sources.  Sandstein  09:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SisterTwister. Subject is not sufficiently independently notable.Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2015 (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.