Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Centre Trust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Future Centre Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just saying something is non-notable is not enough. You need to show you've done the legwork and have good reason to believe it isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please see WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. That's a cop-out, to make it into Somebody Else's Problem. The burden before article deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy of long standing, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and indeed per Martin Harper's original formulation of the verifiability policy, is upon editors to show that they've looked for sources and failed. Editors who think that the responsibility is for everyone else to provide sources, and that their responsibility lies solely with sitting on the sidelines nominating articles for deletion and demanding that everyone else do the work, are not actually helping to write the encyclopaedia. Collaborative writing involves sharing the burden, which includes doing the legwork of looking for sources onesself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. It also makes an argument that something is unverifiable or not notable hold water. One cannot, after all, honestly say that something is unverifiable or isn't notable if one has made zero effort to determine whether that is in fact the case. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. When this was nominated there were few references anywhere to it. I followed policy. I have now withdrawn the nom.. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When this was nominated, many of the references now cited had existed for several years. Indeed, a few of them have been around longer than Wikipedia itself has been in existence. You did not follow policy. Policy requires, and has required since Martin Harper first wrote it in 2003, that you look for sources yourself. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Looking for sources yourself beforehand, where the history of what has always been policy and good practice here, is traced out. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. When this was nominated there were few references anywhere to it. I followed policy. I have now withdrawn the nom.. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. That's a cop-out, to make it into Somebody Else's Problem. The burden before article deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy of long standing, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and indeed per Martin Harper's original formulation of the verifiability policy, is upon editors to show that they've looked for sources and failed. Editors who think that the responsibility is for everyone else to provide sources, and that their responsibility lies solely with sitting on the sidelines nominating articles for deletion and demanding that everyone else do the work, are not actually helping to write the encyclopaedia. Collaborative writing involves sharing the burden, which includes doing the legwork of looking for sources onesself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. It also makes an argument that something is unverifiable or not notable hold water. One cannot, after all, honestly say that something is unverifiable or isn't notable if one has made zero effort to determine whether that is in fact the case. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please see WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article has no references to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:N, and a Google News search throws up no hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously recommend doing proper research before you make sweeping statements like that. I will find the book reference I used to start the article later. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my statement: the article did have no independent sources, and there are no google news hits.
I suggest that in future, you add references to an article when you write it, rather than pitching up afterwards to make sarcastic comments to other editors who are unaware of what refs you have used because you were too lazy to add them in the first place.
When you create an article, there is a clear warning above the edit box: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted". Which part of that sentence was unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created when I was newbie three years ago at a time when I was baffled with how the referencing system worked. And given that I went out of my way to start the article I would hardly call myself lazy, I go out of my way to help wikipedia. You really could use a few lessons in civility and learn how to research articles properly. As an admin you should know better than this. Perhaps its time to go blonde, but I guess at least you have hair unlike myself! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, you were a newbie, and we all had to start somewhere. But if you blame others for not fully second-guessing your sources, don't be surprised if the response is to point out that the basic mistake is yours, for not referencing the article. If you don't like a sharp reply, don't make sarcastic put-downs to others.
You're still at it now, pouring out more personal abuse, contrary to WP:NPA. If you want the article to be kept, please provide evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources, rather than sniping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is pouring out personal abuse, I just think you need to lighten up thats all and not take things so harshly. Try googling Counterpart Caribbean which it seems to group is now called. The article has been considerably improved since the nomination and the affiliation of the NGO with the UN and the wider global sustainable development movement clearly asserts notability as does its presence in eco-political decision making in Barbados. It was run by the President of the Caribbean Development Bank which again clearly asserts its signifance in the Caribbean region. The book I have on Barbados is an excellent one but one which covers only notable topics related to the island. If it wasn't notable to Barbados or significant it wouldn't have a whole page dedicated to it. I'd imagine a great deal exists on paper sources too in newsapers and journals etc in Barbados seems as the organisation is highly active in newspaper and the radio. If I'm not feeling "lazy" I meet even see if I can find an email address of some organisations in Barbados and ask them to email me any information they might have on the group, or some sources to develop it further. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, you were a newbie, and we all had to start somewhere. But if you blame others for not fully second-guessing your sources, don't be surprised if the response is to point out that the basic mistake is yours, for not referencing the article. If you don't like a sharp reply, don't make sarcastic put-downs to others.
- The article was created when I was newbie three years ago at a time when I was baffled with how the referencing system worked. And given that I went out of my way to start the article I would hardly call myself lazy, I go out of my way to help wikipedia. You really could use a few lessons in civility and learn how to research articles properly. As an admin you should know better than this. Perhaps its time to go blonde, but I guess at least you have hair unlike myself! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my statement: the article did have no independent sources, and there are no google news hits.
- I seriously recommend doing proper research before you make sweeping statements like that. I will find the book reference I used to start the article later. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I think the article as it stands now proves both mine and MacGyver's points that you shouldn't nominate articles for deletion and dismiss them as "not notable" without a strong claim to do. Fair point made by Brown haired girl though. Yes it did need referencing!, yes it did need reliable sources in abundance! and yes it needed expansion! A google search under this groups current name -I count 602,000 google hits. It always looked like a notable subject otherwise I wouldn't have started it, just needed expansion and referencing as do several hundred thousand of our other articles. Buenos Noches. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Dr. Blofeld's improvements[1] make this a sure keep; it is now notable and verified enough to keep for sure. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well referenced and clearly notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it has references. The Afd nomination should not have stated unnotability as clearly its notability hadnt been looked into by the nominator. Also, BrownHairedGirl, as admin you should be keeping a clear head and not biting back even if you feel other editors are sharp with you,it lowers the tone of the debate. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article seems to be appropriate for Wikipedia (maybe some improvement necessary).Ans-mo (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn because it is renamed and substantially improved. Now complies with NN V and RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 4 April 2009 (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.