Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lima Rescue Mission
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. I would encourage a cleanup of the later sections, which read more like a bulleted list from a brochure than an encyclopedia article. But issues re. sourcing have at least been partially addressed since the AFD started. Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Rescue Mission[edit]
Charity, which whilst I'm sure it is worthy, offers no notability of any form Nuttah68 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem notable, and possible OR since there are no sources. Fails WP:ORG. –The Great Llamamoo? 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability is in the eye of the beholder - there are thousands of articles about places many have never heard of. Furthermore, as for sources, give it a week and it should pick up. Even so, if not having sources in an article automatically meant deletion, half of the articles today would be gone in a heartbeat, even "notable" ones. Hit the random article button a few times, and you'll see what I mean. --Jay(Reply) 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not being sourced isn't grounds for deletion. Sources not existing is, though, and I don't think they do. -Amarkov blahedits 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability is asserted and sources provided per WP:N and WP:V. As it stands this is just an interesting history article that restates what's on the mission's web page. Tubezone 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean to sound over-the-top here, but someone has taken the time to write this article, fairly well I must say, and the deletionist attitude being presented here is not justified by naming guidelines all over the alphabet. I don't see the harm in leaving the article on Wikipedia. There are stubs that don't even approach the detail of this article, and yet they are left alone, with no calls to delete them. Yes, there are lines that must be upheld, however, this article is well within bounds. Furthermore, this article is not on a controversial issue, and to put it under the same scrutiny as a more controversial article is ludicrous. Jay(Reply) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, Jay, you're an admin, you know this just isn't true. Lots of long articles about school, churches, etc. that aren't controversial, get deleted all the time, on exactly the basis I brought up. I also would really rather not see this AfD get run up the flagpole when someone else wants to keep an article that can't pass the notability criteria. Tubezone 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to draw attention to this category, which highlights several articles on the same topic. You are not suggesting that we go ahead and delete those to, are you? --Jay(Reply) 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you've read WP:INN? Also, that's like 12 rescue missions out of , what, thousands? (BTW, Pacific Garden Mission probably ought to have an article, coming up with at least a dozen media cites for that should be a snap). "Keep it, it doesn't hurt anything" - I'll try to maintain civility here, and not comment other than to say that argument gets ignored about a dozen times a day. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one for you: WP:IAR. Rescue mission out of a thousand you say? Big deal, I wouldn't mind having an article on every one. As for the Pacific Garden Mission, make an article for it—no one is stopping you; the "this topic doesn't have an article" argument is probably just as ignored. Has it ever occurred to you that WP has grown to 1.5+M articles because small topics (such as this) have articles written about them? I'll also try to maintain civility here by simply saying perhaps you could use a break from AfD. --Jay(Reply) 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one for you, sound familiar? For clarification, I won't generally break any rules. If a job needs to get done, there is a way it can be done without breaking the rules, if it is a legit job. I don't see any extraordinary circumstances here demanding IAR, if there are any, what are they? AAMOF, I think PGM does deserve an article, although I'm not much on writing articles on religous stuff, if no one beats me to it, I will do it at some point (after all, it's in Chicago) I just happened to mention PGM tangentially as something that needs an article, not as an argument for or against deletion of this one. You might like an article on every rescue mission in the country, but at this point, the notability guidelines don't support that, and (Jesus, tautology) as I pointed out before, similar non-notable religious organizations are getting zapped - sometimes en masse - now you want to suggest that a whole series of articles on rescue missions would be apropo for WP? Yeah, I could use a break from AfD's.. OTOH, God made many different kinds of Wikipedians, some like discussing AfD's, others want to create in-depth Pokemon articles. Tubezone 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I will do it..." is the same good intention that the new user had when writing this article; unfortunately, they had to get a taste of the good ol' wikiprocess. All I will say is that no one is stopping you from creating any article; go ahead (hopefully you won't find yourself here ;). As for my mentioning of IAR, it was to illustrate a point that any essay, guideline, etc. that can be brought up as "case law" in this matter can easily be contradicted by another policy or guideline (and I really don't see what you're trying to get at by quoting my RfA - administrator rules are very different from article guidelines—the subject of this debate.) I am deeply concerned that you have made this debate a personal matter. If you would like to discuss any more ideologies etc, there is more than enough room on my talk page. I've said everything I have to say. --Jay(Reply) 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one for you, sound familiar? For clarification, I won't generally break any rules. If a job needs to get done, there is a way it can be done without breaking the rules, if it is a legit job. I don't see any extraordinary circumstances here demanding IAR, if there are any, what are they? AAMOF, I think PGM does deserve an article, although I'm not much on writing articles on religous stuff, if no one beats me to it, I will do it at some point (after all, it's in Chicago) I just happened to mention PGM tangentially as something that needs an article, not as an argument for or against deletion of this one. You might like an article on every rescue mission in the country, but at this point, the notability guidelines don't support that, and (Jesus, tautology) as I pointed out before, similar non-notable religious organizations are getting zapped - sometimes en masse - now you want to suggest that a whole series of articles on rescue missions would be apropo for WP? Yeah, I could use a break from AfD's.. OTOH, God made many different kinds of Wikipedians, some like discussing AfD's, others want to create in-depth Pokemon articles. Tubezone 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one for you: WP:IAR. Rescue mission out of a thousand you say? Big deal, I wouldn't mind having an article on every one. As for the Pacific Garden Mission, make an article for it—no one is stopping you; the "this topic doesn't have an article" argument is probably just as ignored. Has it ever occurred to you that WP has grown to 1.5+M articles because small topics (such as this) have articles written about them? I'll also try to maintain civility here by simply saying perhaps you could use a break from AfD. --Jay(Reply) 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you've read WP:INN? Also, that's like 12 rescue missions out of , what, thousands? (BTW, Pacific Garden Mission probably ought to have an article, coming up with at least a dozen media cites for that should be a snap). "Keep it, it doesn't hurt anything" - I'll try to maintain civility here, and not comment other than to say that argument gets ignored about a dozen times a day. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to draw attention to this category, which highlights several articles on the same topic. You are not suggesting that we go ahead and delete those to, are you? --Jay(Reply) 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... No it isn't within bounds. There are no sources outside of the website itself. -Amarkov blahedits 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the article recently? There is clearly a source from the local newspaper of Lima, Ohio. Jay(Reply) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, one source from the city newspaper of Lima. Teeny bit better. -Amarkov blahedits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that there were no sources, and well, look, there are. There is still time to re-adjust your position. I imagine that if you came across the article, you wouldn't have taken the time to go through all this wiki-process to have it deleted. Jay(Reply) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have. But are you suggesting that "not worth the process" is a reason to keep? -Amarkov blahedits 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember now, the process can yield two different results. What I meant by my comment was that this isn't the grand-slam delete case, like most of the articles listed here. Jay(Reply) 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's pretty close to a slam-dunk speedy, very little notability is being asserted. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7; not even close. You are mistaking notability for popularity - two different things. If this article were to say simply, "LMR gives food to the homeless", I would have speedied it when I originally came across it. However, the article clearly mentions how LMR is involved with Lima, Ohio, and furthermore, how it is apart of the global city mission movement—that is what makes it notable. The fact that it has never been on CNN or that it doesn't have 500,000 search engine results (indicative of popularity) does not mean that the subject is not notable. --Jay(Reply) 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines are pretty clear. The subject of this article doesn't even assert a claim to meeting even one of them. If it did, I'm sure you'd have brought it up by now. So tagged. 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The sub-argument here is on whether or not the article should have been removed per CSD—it shouldn't have, and this was addressed in my previous comment (further upheld by LS). You have solid points on everything else in this debate (which ironically is much longer than the article in question), however, your CSD claim should be put to rest. --Jay(Reply) 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have such an issue with this article? After you tagged you noted "No notability asserted, just another rescue mission". Why don't you go tag other rescue mission articles then? Some of them don't even list any references at all, and they all contain similar information to this article. So why aren't those being disputed? 208.10.0.114 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7; not even close. You are mistaking notability for popularity - two different things. If this article were to say simply, "LMR gives food to the homeless", I would have speedied it when I originally came across it. However, the article clearly mentions how LMR is involved with Lima, Ohio, and furthermore, how it is apart of the global city mission movement—that is what makes it notable. The fact that it has never been on CNN or that it doesn't have 500,000 search engine results (indicative of popularity) does not mean that the subject is not notable. --Jay(Reply) 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's pretty close to a slam-dunk speedy, very little notability is being asserted. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember now, the process can yield two different results. What I meant by my comment was that this isn't the grand-slam delete case, like most of the articles listed here. Jay(Reply) 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have. But are you suggesting that "not worth the process" is a reason to keep? -Amarkov blahedits 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that there were no sources, and well, look, there are. There is still time to re-adjust your position. I imagine that if you came across the article, you wouldn't have taken the time to go through all this wiki-process to have it deleted. Jay(Reply) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, one source from the city newspaper of Lima. Teeny bit better. -Amarkov blahedits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the article recently? There is clearly a source from the local newspaper of Lima, Ohio. Jay(Reply) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, Jay, you're an admin, you know this just isn't true. Lots of long articles about school, churches, etc. that aren't controversial, get deleted all the time, on exactly the basis I brought up. I also would really rather not see this AfD get run up the flagpole when someone else wants to keep an article that can't pass the notability criteria. Tubezone 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean to sound over-the-top here, but someone has taken the time to write this article, fairly well I must say, and the deletionist attitude being presented here is not justified by naming guidelines all over the alphabet. I don't see the harm in leaving the article on Wikipedia. There are stubs that don't even approach the detail of this article, and yet they are left alone, with no calls to delete them. Yes, there are lines that must be upheld, however, this article is well within bounds. Furthermore, this article is not on a controversial issue, and to put it under the same scrutiny as a more controversial article is ludicrous. Jay(Reply) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Lima, Ohio. Just H 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Jay Drew30319 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a confluence of WP:LOCAL and WP:ORG/WP:CORP. This is a city-wide mission which is part of a larger association and doesn't merit an individual article. Independent coverage extends to a single local news article. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability (being a mission is not inherently notable). That this organisation exists and functions is not good enough to warrant its inclusion. Has it received any type of award/recognition for its good work (which has been published in third-party reliable sources)? Has it received state-wide or national coverage? Has it achieved fame or notoriety in any other way? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I added information regarding Lima Rescue Mission being the second oldest gospel rescue mission in Ohio and the only facility of its kind in west central Ohio. Some may find that information to be notable, while I am sure others will still take issue. Aaron01 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's too large to merge, and per WP:LOCAL, "Eventually, as the article becomes overly large due to more verifiable information being added, information on individual places can be broken out into individual articles. This process should begin with those places which have the most verifiable information on them, and therefore have the strongest case for a stand-alone article. See below for suggestions on how to do this." This justifies the existence of this article. --Rory096 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Any organization that's existed for 100 years gets a sort of "special attention," from me. We can obviously verify that this group exists, and that it has had an impact on its community. I see here that the AfD regulars seem to be leaning to delete -- I can sort've see both sides of the picture, personally, but I do worry that sometimes we get too "jaded" (after deleting 100 articles under prod, I know I get a bit deletionist). A7 certainly wouldn't be appropriate, for this one, and even AfD, I'm not so sure. I notice this one hasn't been closed, yet -- it's a very close call to make, and I'd encourage the closing admin to think it over carefully. Luna Santin 01:10, 23 December 2006 (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.