Talk:Garden sharing

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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

Re: List of garden sharing projects

User:Themfromspace posted the following to my Talk page re the repeated removal of a list of garden sharing sites from this article. I've responded (per the user's request below) to each point and reinserted the list into the article:

Please look over WP:ELNO to realize why these links aren't proper on Wikipedia. In particular, I'm referring to points the following points:

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

These sites provide unique resources because they ARE garden sharing, in the same way a photo of garden sharing would provide an additional resource. The alternative would be to list them without the http linkage, which would defeat the point of the Web: hyperlinks. Please remember that WP:ELNO is a WP style guideline, which comes with the advice that it is "best treated with common sense."

11 Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

None of these sites are blogs, personal web pages or fansites, these are garden sharing platforms.

13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

These sites are directly related to the article's subject, they literally ARE garden sharing.

14 Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.

None of these sites are manufacturers, suppliers or customers. They are garden sharing sites.

As per the above, the links in this article clearly don't meet our policy for external links, so I have yet again removed them. Don't reinsert them without a valid rationale as to why our policy should be circumvented in this instance. Them From Space 19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More formally-structured garden sharing is a relatively new phenomenon, and illustrating exactly how they work is clearly a valuable resource in an article about this subject. Garden sharing involves a transaction between two parties, and in order for that to occur, the parties have to first come together. The mechanism for this is, for obvious reasons, often and most usefully via a web platform. These links are to such platforms, not to sites about garden sharing. They ARE garden sharing. A somewhat similar example is List of intentional communities.

I appreciate that you suspect they are "spammy" (from your edit note in the article history), but a list of links is not automatically spammy because it is a list of links. You have to read and consider the content if you are going to make editorial decisions, not work by superficial appearances.

I have added clarification to the list.

Please note as well that this is a new article, currently classified as a stub. As a WP contributor who has observed and participated in article development, I don't think new content is best served by summarily deleting useful, central information within a few days of the article's inception. You need to actually investigate the content you're considering for deletion. You're not correcting typos here, you're removing CONTENT that another editor has taken the time to contribute (and in this case, intentionally or not, suggesting that this editor is spamming WP). --Tsavage (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a linkfarm. These sections full of external links are inappropriate as per our guidelines, as I have clearly pointed out up above. I see another editor has agreed with me and has also removed the links as per WP:EL. Them From Space 04:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have replied to my comments above. Because two editors have coinciding deletionist leanings doesn't make either of them more right. Please state clarify your objections per my comments above, or leave the links alone. --Tsavage (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We work by consensus here. Consensus on this talk page is that the links don't belong. You can't argue against two editors and restore the page to the one you see fit. I have reremoved the linkfarm, don't reinsert it without consensus. Them From Space 02:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works first on discussion and common-sense adherence to guidelines. You've cited a guideline, but have not responded to discussion. There are three editors here, no discussion, no consensus. And consensus is not majority voting. Please do not revert my edit without proper reason. --Tsavage (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page of the guidelines in an attempt to get more of a consensus here, since edit warring solves nothing. Them From Space 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the list, but that list is simply a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, we are not a directory of garden sharing sites (they might fit into a separate list article). However, if these sites are notable in themselves, they could have an own article, and that could be linked via a regular wikilink. Just as a besides, these lists are huge spam-magnets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove a list, don't remove content with it, in this case, the section head and initial paragraph. And rather than delete content - in addition to the links, there was information - you should rewrite if you have such a problem with the format. In any case, it's less effort for me to rewrite than to argue. --Tsavage (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of links was inappropriate, as others have already mentioned, but the entire section also has the appearance of being original research. Are any of these garden sharing websites discussed in third-party reliable sources? --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can determine whether the garden sharing websites mentioned in the article are discussed in third-party reliable sources by checking the References & Notes provided in the article. --Tsavage (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are notes for that section, yes. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919: When you questioned the revised section re original research (at 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)), only one site was included, and there was a citation for it: [1]. Your current comment reinforces my impression that, at least here, enforcing rules and proving preconceptions seems more important to some contributors than actually developing content. This is a valid article, developed in good faith. Having taken such an interest in it, you or anyone else who gathered here could have in a few minutes edited the article to conform to their interpretation of WP guidelines, given the material that was present all the time. This article isn't "mine," it's there to be worked on... --Tsavage (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As RL0919 states, the list of links is inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to find a list of examples of things. Additionally, any enterprise that is mentioned needs a reliable source (like the LA Times article) to establish that it is notable enough to be mentioned. We don't link to the websites of people who do something just because they do it. The links in that group should be considered as external links, not names dropped in the body of the article. However they should not be listed in an external links as examples of garden sharing. They should be linked only if they further explain and go into detail about garden sharing (and they have third party sites that establish some authority or notability). 2005 (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed description of GardenLend service

Removed as a non-notable example of a garden sharing web service:

GardenLend was set up in 2006, originally in Wimbledon, with a national scope to enable the sharing of gardens for the purposes of gardening and local food production for those without access to gardens of their own and to assist those who had gardens that they were unproductive. The scheme is based on a forum whereby members, having joined for free, can either post details of their gardens and the opportunities available, as well as allowing those without gardens to advertise for gardens that they might share and use.

GardenLend Membership area and forum.
Dating Agency introduces avid gardeners to gardens Wimbledon Guardian.

The third-party source link is broken and a replacement couldn't be found. Also, there are only about a dozen listings on the site (after 3 years?), compared to 40,000+ on a LandShare, another project with similar geographic scope. --Tsavage (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]