Deletion of Farmdrop (2nd nomination)

Comment: I looked at the links {{U|Northamerica1000}} provided.  After doing so I am convinced the existing coverage is NOT made up of advertizing content masquerading as solid reporting.  The idea that respect for the environment requires trying to buy food that is produced within an hour's drive of consumption is a relatively new idea.  But isn't dismissing it as nonsense hype is, a failure of imagination?  Contributor {{U|Steve Quinn}}, above, seems to be asserting that the press coverage of Farmdrop has to have been written by a conspiracy of corrupt reporters, writing straight from an advertizer's crib sheet, and tricking their poor readers into thinking they were reading an honest third party report.  Occam's razor man -- didn't it occur to you that the reason all the press reports say similar things because that is the honest opinion of honest third party reporters?  Steve Quinn asks for reporters who actually interviewed the actual farmers, to confirm the firm gives them as large a cut as the firm claims.  First, if, for the sake of argument, it were necessary for these farmers to have been interviewed, if this assertion were to be repeated in a wikipedia article, we would still have a completely adequate article on a notable topic, if those passages were struck.  Second, unlike the ''fair trade coffee'' meme, where distributors claimed consumers should be happy to pay a premium, because they paid the third world coffee producers a better deal than the big guys, '''''THESE''''' farmers all live close to these newspapers, and would, presumably scream blue murder, if the firm CLAIMED to pay them a lot more than they were actually paid.  I remind Steve Quinn he and I and all the rest of us are not journalists.  Rather as per, , we rely on journalists.  VER says our coverage is based on verifiability, not truth.  Even if, for the sake of argument, some of us could sniff out a conspiracy that was oblivious to ordinary newspaper readers, we still have to rely on what verifiable sources say.  I write in articles on some controversial topics.  Soon after I started doing so, I found myself facing a decision.  I soon found lots of instances where I found the press reporting inadequate, because it didn't agree with my personal conclusions.  But, I re-read VER, and decided if I was going to comply with policy, I could either stop working on those topics, or work on them, keeping my personal conclusions to myself, while neutrally covering material written from a point of view I personally disagreed with.  I work hard to comply with VER and , when I come across RS that makes assertions I personally disagree with, and I want to be ablo to rely on everybody else doing likewise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Thank you, Northamerica1000 for removing that Guardian "supported" content.  I have just checked enough of the other sources on the page to state that page meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:GNG)

Comment: Thanks for the ping. Based on the sources on the page, this definitely meets . The coverage doesn't seem to be trivial to me in the way that the guideline defines it and I think there's enough independent coverage for there to be an article here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: although the article still feels promotional.  The coverage presumably only exists because of a well-run PR campaign, but there's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet .  With £7 million in funding, it could plausibly meet a numeric test
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)