Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Bay Sea Rescue

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 merge to Oak Bay, British Columbia. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Sea Rescue[edit]

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

Delete other then one event this is a non notable base of a larger organization. Perhaps merge into the overall article but not seeing how this merits a standalone at this point Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Sea Rescue is very separate from the Royal Canadian Marine Search and own's the vessels and it can separate if it wants to, it is more of a funding agreement between the two. There has been a long been a problem of this misconception. The Oak Bay Sea Rescue it is very important to this area. Do not delete this article!--Oaktreebay (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable org. reddogsix (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ - I have updated the article, and should clear up the misconception. Please remove the banner. --Oaktreebay (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate the notability of this local organization. There's a one-event issue, also—though can a rescue organization really be notable for having one of its vessels sink? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does say alot about the risks they take. It a is what happened so it should be told... --Oaktreebay (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking risks does not make them a notable organization, though. That's the issue: there is no evidence that this organization meets the guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having one of its vessels sink does not alone make it notable, but there is much more in this article then jest that. I have done some more updating. It meets the guidelines. If you still think it's not notable can you tell me more why? --Oaktreebay (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – at least for now. Nominating an article for deletion 4-minutes after it was created hardly gives it a chance to get it's first breath. No need to bite the relatively new editor. Let Editor Oaktreebay and others have a go at it. The world will not collapse in upon itself if this article remains for a month or two. –Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out where nominating a article for deletion on a new editor is biting? I keep asking the people who say this and no one seems to be able to answer it...Or maybe just the policy that has different standards for new editors article notability standards as compares to experienced editors? Looking forward to an answer! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean beyond manners and common courtesy? Aren't those enough? Simply reading the article makes it clear that it was written by someone who doesn't have a lot of experience at Wikipedia – a fact easily confirmed by looking at the article and author histories. A new Wikipedia editor has a lot to learn. To learn and become a productive contributor, new editors need time and practice. If they feel comfortable here they'll get that practice. If they don't they leave with a bad taste in their mouths.

I suggest that a more appropriate action on your part (aside from waiting more than 4-minutes after the article was created to take any action) would have been to make a post to the author so that the two of you could discuss your concerns. Consider it your embasage to pass on what you have learned.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you would consider good manners letting them waste their time on an article that won't be here anyways? And we do leave messages, they are called templates. Not everything has to be custom written, it links them to the appropriate policy (Which is still something you haven't addressed from my question)and it should be read, then if there is still questions ask! I believe the templates direct them to the users talkpage too, if at that point in time the person is a dick then absolutely it's biting! If not it's just regular site maintenance. I give you an example, you move to a new town and you start building a home, now you can't build how you want to build so you're ordered to stop, isn't kinder to stop it before the building is done? Why allow that person to sink their time and resources into something, isn't that far more cruel? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it poor manners for an experienced person in any field to abruptly declare a neophyte's work to be worthless. Perhaps it is, but what does the novice learn from the experience? We don't punish children when they fail to march across the room when they first attempt to walk. We let them fall; we hold their hands; we encourage them. Time spent learning is not time wasted.

I did answer your question about policy; perhaps too obliquely. Manners and common courtesy. If Wikipedia needs to codify every nuance of editor interaction, then Wikipolicy will dwarf Wikipedia. If such codification is required, human society at large is in deep trouble.

Templates are good. I use them all the time. Templates are not a substitute for common courtesy, nor do they relieve experienced editors of their obligation to help newbies get a foothold in the large and complex world of Wikipedia. In place of the abrupt nomination for deletion template, for novice writers {{notability}} is a better choice. Hold off for a fortnight and then consider nominating the article for deletion.

Your home-building metaphor is a bit of a stretch. No one here is going to die if an article doesn't meet code.

We must invest time and resources. Without that we can't try and fail. Without we try and fail, we cannot learn and succeed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: "Don't bite the newcomers" is the (emphasized) first bullet at ~~Wikipedia:New pages~~ Special:NewPages. PK T(alk) 13:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant Special:NewPages?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed......thx, PK T(alk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has answered how allowing an article that shouldn't be here to is allowed and where the lower standards of quality for shorter term editors? And with respect to your school analogy maybe that's why the U.S. has the crappy schools and education that we do. Life isn't all fluff and candy. If you define deletion nomination as biting, which I note the WP:BITE page does not (Only csd within 60 secs, not AFD within four) I will apply WP:IAR and continue to mantain the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I've written again. I have stated why the work of novice editors should receive the benefit of relaxed standards. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone made a school analogy. Where did that come from? If I understand what you've written, you seem to want codified policy that explicitly grants novice editors certain relief from established standards and treatment; but, if such policies existed, you would then claim WP:IAR. Have I got that right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hell in a Bucket, do you still think it's not notable? I have done lots more updating. If you still think it's not notable can you tell me more in detail why? I still feel it very much so that it meets the guidelines. --Oaktreebay (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, I'm sorry but a primary requirement for this project is WP:RS, sources that are separate from the source we are writing about. Right now the current incarnation shows only sources from their own website. I do sympathize in the fact that I like to write about local things and people where I'm from too. I would say if there was anything that makes it notable that's nontrivial as far as sourcing should be added but right now I feel that it fails WP:ORGDEPTH, if there are sources that can help alleviate those concerns I'd happily support inclusion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other notability concern I see is with WP:NGO. Either this is a local organization which does not have activities at national scope, or it is a local chapter of the national rescue society. Either way, I don't see the organization is notable, regardless of the number of sources that are provided. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C.Fred, the Oak Bay Sea Rescue is a independent society who own's the vessels, equipment and funding. I still feel that it meets the notability guidelines with the organization’s longevity, it's major achievements (and some failures), the fact it operates internationally as need in the USA, the fact life would be lost if this society was not in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I feel that it would be inappropriate to merge with any other article.--96.54.214.9 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Oaktreebay[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although paywalled, I've accessed three articles from the Victoria Times-Colonist that discuss this group significantly. Two are cited in the article, this is the third: Bell, Jeff. "Community Backing Vital to Heroes Who Save Lives at Sea - by Jeff Bell - Times Colonist Staff." Times - Colonist: 1. Jun 01 1995. Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies. Web. 5 Jan. 2013. As the Victoria T.C. is the "newspaper of record" for the Island region, I'm inclined to keep this article per the GNG. (Article text available by email on request) The Interior (Talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the town, including the references. I think there is general acceptance that these type of organizations are rarely notable, and that local coverage of this nature is routine and not sufficient. The reason it is not sufficient is that local papers write about essentially any organization in their community, not discriminating the ones which would be of importance outside it.

Local articles are a problem. These are good topics for beginners, and a properly done local article can appear as /encyclopedic as any other article. What I suggest is a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and the upper levels of a good deal of what we do not let in. Newcomers would have an open and accepting place for a initial experience.

With respect to new editors, I have never been reluctant to nominate for speedy or AfD if the articles are truly hopeless, but when the articles are merely of borderline notability,sometime should be allowed before nominating, and the new editor just reminded about what is needed. Although AfD and PROD allow 7 days to do this, the initial notices are so hostile that the process does lose us editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate to merge with any other article, the choice should be to delete or not to delete only. --Oaktreebay (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus will decide if that is the case, you've stated your rationale very well to this point. best to wait out the rest of the discussion to finish the where or what of things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I'm not at all convinved this is a notable organisation, and the fact that there's pretty obvious COI/self-promotion going on isn't good either. If it must be kept, merge to the town article as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---- As the editor of 99.99% of the content and the one who start the article, i want deletion of this article. --Oaktreebay (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that consensus to delete has been reached. And it is time to close this page. --Oaktreebay (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let you know, generally these are closed by unconnected editors, we know you want the article deleted you've made that abundantly clear however there's still a very good chance it will be merged to the overall parent article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:48, 12 January 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.