Talk:Team Rubicon

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Clay Hunt Fellows Program[edit]

Not enough independent coverage of this program to merit an article for the moment. Domdeparis (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content[edit]

While I understand the well-meant intention behind the edits made to this page, I am concerned at the wholesale deletion of content that was done. The end result is that I am going to have to do a ton of work to re-integrate good content that you have deleted because you as one editor deem the citations and content to be too encyclopedic. It doesn't compute. I don't think that because most business pages are really poor doesn't mean that having a strong page here -- for a charity that is doing so much for people all over the world, especially -- is a constructive use of time. I know the parameters here. I disagree with the methodology and see this as hostile editing. I am going to try and do more work on the page but really I think this was incredibly unhelpful deletions and don't appreciate it at all. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an awful lot of information added to this article over time and it is starting to look like a WP:SOAPBOX page for the organisation. The photos I believe were unnecessary and are purely decorative and in my opinion contravene MOS:PERTINENCE. The further reading section contained promotional videos for the organisation which you have removed. The Twitter account address is contrary to WP:ELNO. Social media is acceptable as a link if it is the only external presence for a subject but as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL these extra links are not necessary especially as there are links to all the social media accounts on the organisation's web site. This page has been edited over the years by a very large number of WP:SPA accounts that have sought to add promotional info. I am not suggesting that your 100 plus edits over the last 24 hours were purely promotional but the page looked like it had suddenly turned into a promo site for the organisation hence my bold edits. If you take an honest look at the page before I edited here it is very spammy I must admit I thought that it had been edited by a paid editor hence my bold edits. Domdeparis (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly this is ridiculous. You are actually arguing to delete content?!? Why? I have ZERO association with the organization. Everything is fully cited. If you don't like pictures on Wikipedia pages that is a sad thing. But I don't think that the argument that this entry is too good is a reason to delete the information. I worked hard on this as a way to give back for Hurricane Harvey, so the page and the resources might be available for people in affected areas. And NYC where I live is facing another Hurricane, where Team Rubicon might be deployed. So it's important the entry is good. I just totally disagree with the motivation behind deleting content, especially content that is so clearly cited from good sources. I am appalled actually at your argument here. I would encourage you to rethink deleting someone else's work just because they did a good job and spent a lot of time building the article so that it is fully cited and represents the company well. Please reconsider. I beg you. It's just a bad precedent for content on Wikipedia, to take this paranoid and hostile approach. I won't edit if you win here. I wouldn't want to if this is the scenario. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was very careful about curating the photos after you deleted the gallery. Each photo is important and is reflected fully within the article and with citations. This is not a soapbox situation. It's an active experienced Wikipedia editor volunteering to edit an article I am interested in. And because the organization I believe is important, is doing really constructive, life-saving work, and should have a good page. There's no agenda behind these edits. Please think about this. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with being paranoid just by experience as a NPP dealing with paid and COI editors on a daily basis. There may be no agenda but your edits looked very spammy. And you haven't replied about the Twitter link. You seem very passionate about this company I'm sure that it is important to you and hurricane victimes but this is not a reason to go overboard. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to pay hommage or promote them. That is the company web site's purpose or social media or blogs. I'm not arguing to delete content I'm explaining why I did it. Noone owns the content they add as you must know. I've given some policy reasons why I did it. You may not agree and I don't want to get into an edit war with you so I won't touch this article again but I think if you were looking at a totally different page that you are not interested in you would have the same reaction as me. Domdeparis (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with William McNulty (relief organization founder)[edit]

NO CONSENSUS:

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus for a merge.
Cunard (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This person's apparent sole claim to notability is co-founding Team Rubicon, so it would seem WP:BIO1E would apply. Even with trimming some effusive fluff, the bulk of the article would be about Team Rubicon: going to college and serving in the Marines are not independently noteworthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. But you may well get a few impassioned opose !votes this seems to be a subject that creates quite a bit of emotion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the previous discussion, and note the changes (mostly for the better) over the last month. The article still reads a bit too promotional, e.g. text and presentation that could quite plausibly be found on an official website. No matter how noble or important the work of an organization, Wikipedia is not the place to gush about it, and most details or news blips are best left to the organization's own websites. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McNulty also founded Team Rubicon Global which is a separate organization. In addition he launched Team Rubicon charity organizations in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the UK. Each one of those organizations a charities registered in their respective countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr1234567 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tr1234567: are you affiliated with Team Rubicon? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no evidence that he's notable. One's founding of a notable organization does not in itself make that person notable. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge: honorary doctorate from a respectable institution is arguably sufficient to support independent notability. He is also active on the public speaking market, suggesting that he has activities beyond the charity. I therefore suggest that it is clearer to keep the pages separate. Klbrain (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

TR X logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]