Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Greening

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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Greening

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

Still rather advert-toned and nothing suggesting the needed substantial sources, my searches have found links to suggest it's locally known but still not enough for the levels of an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. The topic also passes WP:AUD, having received non-local coverage in book sources. The organization has also received coverage in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which is a regional media source, because it is distributed and read in Greater St. Louis and "as far west as Kansas City, Missouri, as far south as Memphis, Tennessee, and as far north as Springfield, Illinois". This is in addition to the great deal of local coverage the organization has received. See source examples below. Minor promotional tone can be easily addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Non-local coverage in book and other sources

Reclaiming Our Food. Storey Publishing. pp. 127–135.
The City After Abandonment. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 33–34.
Missouri Gardener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 169–. (subscription required)
"Lending a Green Thumb | Maker Movement". Library Journal. (National distribution in the U.S. Article has 5 ¶ of content pertaining to the organization.)

Local coverage

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] (video news report)
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

Keep There were 49 sources present in the article at the time of nomination. I looked for possible "advert-toned" without seeing any templates or discussion on the talk page to explain the problem. In addition, this topic gets hits on Google scholar. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are forty-seven sources in this article at the moment. I don't see how anyone can claim it fails WP:GNG. It's not just local coverage either. There is perhaps a slight promotional tone but that can easily be fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2016 (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.