Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary

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 redirect to Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary

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

Recommend deletion due to lack of established notability provided through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. While at first glance, it appears that the organization meets the general notability guidelines, the sources provided are actually about the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary and the legal difficulties which that organization has encountered. While some of this content may be merged to the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary article, much of it is inflammatory in nature. In essence, this article primarily exists to disparage the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary and thereby lend credence to the Movement organization that formed to primarily "cleanup" the Sanctuary and the alleged mismanagement therein. Cindy(talk to me) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an attack against a man named Ralph Heath and is full of violations of our policy on biographies of living people. It contains links to unreliable sources such as blog posts and videos. It makes no pretense of following the neutral point of view. This article's point of view is that Ralph Heath is a very bad man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack piece. The allegations are a matter for judicial process. If proved, they might be briefly referred to the main article, but until they are WP should not be used to promote them. As Cullen says, there are so many violations of policy and guidelines here that it is unnecessary to list them all, but I would add WP:COATRACK. --AJHingston (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article details state and federal investigations regarding the management of funds. The matters regarding the federal and state investigations have received their rulings and are not in question. Those investigations and their rulings are not an attack, they are facts. There is a link to one blog, the blog for the Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary which is what this page is about to begin with. The videos are of local investigative news reports and are NOT unreliable sources and show within them, THEIR proof and sources the direct links to which are not available or in any other format to be linked to here. As this page is only one day old of course edits are still needed, but deletion is uncalled for. Nowhere does it state that Ralph Heath is a bad man, however it does indicate actions known in the community and backed up by witnesses and video which necessitated the Movement in the first place. It would make no sense to talk about a movement for change without detailing the reasons why such a movement exists. Nothing stated in the article is personal opinion. The investigations launched by federal and state agencies are not personal opinions, they are facts. The existence of the yacht bought and upgraded with sanctuary money is not a personal opinion it is a fact. The photos taken of underage girls on the Sanctuary propery are not personal opinion, they are facts. No matter how you detail these facts, one can project that the fact that they are being detailed to begin with is not "neutral" but that is not the case. Facts are facts. Remove the link to the blog for the Movement for Change, or to any questionable language but the videos, if you watched them, you would see are not unreliable sources. Forthebirds1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebirds1 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Forthebirds, this specific article is not about the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary, as we already have such an article. Instead it is about the "Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary". In order for this article to exist on Wikipedia, the specific topic "Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary" must be notable, which can be summarized as a topic that has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I see no coverage in reliable sources of the ""Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary". All I see is a Facebook page, which is neither reliable nor independent. Accordingly, the topic of this article is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and the article should be deleted. I do not dispute that some of the sources in the article are reliable, but they are sources describing problems at the sanctuary, not this "movement". In addition, I do not dispute the severity of the problems, but that does not justify creating a Wikipedia article about a "movement" that is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. We expect that every article on Wikipedia be written from the neutral point of view and the article fails that test. It may well be that some of this material belongs in the main article about the sanctuary, but that article ought to be about the entire 40 year history of the organization, and not just its most recent chapter. Any discussion of this controversy in that article must be written in a neutral fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete The subject itself lacks significant media coverage and is not notable. The article is being used as a soapbox to air the group's grievances. Dloh cierekim 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the extensive list of criticisms of the Sanctuary and made the ref's more co:ncise. Ref' are local coverage of the subject in passing with greater local coverrage of the problems at the sanctuary.] I am unable to locate more than a passing reference to the subject, nothing beyond passing references in local coverage. Dloh cierekim 17:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant, sourced, not WP:UNDUE content to Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary. Reliably-sourced content on issues at the SSS and reponses to same is worth mentioning in that article; having an individual article that is essentially a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS piece is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material I so carefully removed has been reintroduced. It is not relevant to the article subject, merely an attack against the Seabird Sanctuary.the third sentence of this version with relevant links might be of service. A delete merge is what I recommend. Dloh cierekim 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think a delete/merge is the best course of action here. While the Movement organization does not meet the threshold for notability, the reliably sourced content could be retained, while removing any undue attacks against the Sanctuary. Cindy(talk to me) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (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.