- 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 no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Coquitlam Search & Rescue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is nearly entirely copied and pasted from the CS&R's website (therefore a copyright violation) and no evidence it meets general notability guidelines. Hwy43 ( talk) 05:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: the article's creator has
indicated he is "on the executive board of this organization and have provided all text and images from the organization's archive." He has a
conflict of interest.
Hwy43 (
talk)
05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hwy43 has stated that this is a conflict of interest but since this only applies to business or financial interests as defined by wikipedia I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Coquitlam Search and Rescue is a registered non-profit and charity. All members are volunteers (including myself) as stated on the Wikipedia post. The content is factual and does not attempt to convince or market anything. There is no conflict of interest as the facts as published by the BC Government are being referenced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robertsell (
talk •
contribs)
17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Previously responded to this here. I'm not the first to express the concern either. Regardless, the page is proposed for deletion because of no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and its content being WP:COPYVIO. Hwy43 ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hwy43 has stated that this is a conflict of interest but since this only applies to business or financial interests as defined by wikipedia I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Coquitlam Search and Rescue is a registered non-profit and charity. All members are volunteers (including myself) as stated on the Wikipedia post. The content is factual and does not attempt to convince or market anything. There is no conflict of interest as the facts as published by the BC Government are being referenced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robertsell (
talk •
contribs)
17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless? Really? So you now admit it is not a conflict of interest but "regardless" you want it deleted? Seems a bit strange to me you would use this language. What sort of evidence is required to ensure [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines are met? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsell ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. You have misread. I have not admitted that. I have reiterated that it is GNG and COPYVIO are my reasons for deletion. The COI is just an FYI. Hwy43 ( talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I read the words correctly. Okay so if your new reason to want to delete this page is Copy Right violations then I already have referenced the pictures as owned by Coquitlam SAR with links to CSAR Flickr site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.210.98 ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep when I Google the article title I see news items like this this, this and this in just the first two pages of results. There seems to be an abundant amount of significant coverage out there. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi Shawn in Montreal, wouldn't you agree that this topic is run of the mill? There simply isn't any indication that this S&R outfit is any more notable than any other S&R outfit in British Columbia, Canada or beyond. This is no different than how almost every municipality has its own police and fire departments. These departments inevitably get mentioned in the news, but this is routine coverage of these ordinary departments just doing their jobs. We therefore don't create articles for every municipality's police and fire departments. Further, given the amount of text the editor has copied and pasted from his S&R website (which are copyright violations, and look at the history of deleted copyrighted images as well), it is obvious that this is self promotion to spread the word about this S&R outfit, whether the intent is financial gain or not. Financial gain isn't the only reason to promote things. Hwy43 ( talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Coquitlam Search & Rescue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is nearly entirely copied and pasted from the CS&R's website (therefore a copyright violation) and no evidence it meets general notability guidelines. Hwy43 ( talk) 05:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: the article's creator has
indicated he is "on the executive board of this organization and have provided all text and images from the organization's archive." He has a
conflict of interest.
Hwy43 (
talk)
05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hwy43 has stated that this is a conflict of interest but since this only applies to business or financial interests as defined by wikipedia I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Coquitlam Search and Rescue is a registered non-profit and charity. All members are volunteers (including myself) as stated on the Wikipedia post. The content is factual and does not attempt to convince or market anything. There is no conflict of interest as the facts as published by the BC Government are being referenced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robertsell (
talk •
contribs)
17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Previously responded to this here. I'm not the first to express the concern either. Regardless, the page is proposed for deletion because of no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and its content being WP:COPYVIO. Hwy43 ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hwy43 has stated that this is a conflict of interest but since this only applies to business or financial interests as defined by wikipedia I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Coquitlam Search and Rescue is a registered non-profit and charity. All members are volunteers (including myself) as stated on the Wikipedia post. The content is factual and does not attempt to convince or market anything. There is no conflict of interest as the facts as published by the BC Government are being referenced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robertsell (
talk •
contribs)
17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless? Really? So you now admit it is not a conflict of interest but "regardless" you want it deleted? Seems a bit strange to me you would use this language. What sort of evidence is required to ensure [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines are met? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsell ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. You have misread. I have not admitted that. I have reiterated that it is GNG and COPYVIO are my reasons for deletion. The COI is just an FYI. Hwy43 ( talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I read the words correctly. Okay so if your new reason to want to delete this page is Copy Right violations then I already have referenced the pictures as owned by Coquitlam SAR with links to CSAR Flickr site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.210.98 ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep when I Google the article title I see news items like this this, this and this in just the first two pages of results. There seems to be an abundant amount of significant coverage out there. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi Shawn in Montreal, wouldn't you agree that this topic is run of the mill? There simply isn't any indication that this S&R outfit is any more notable than any other S&R outfit in British Columbia, Canada or beyond. This is no different than how almost every municipality has its own police and fire departments. These departments inevitably get mentioned in the news, but this is routine coverage of these ordinary departments just doing their jobs. We therefore don't create articles for every municipality's police and fire departments. Further, given the amount of text the editor has copied and pasted from his S&R website (which are copyright violations, and look at the history of deleted copyrighted images as well), it is obvious that this is self promotion to spread the word about this S&R outfit, whether the intent is financial gain or not. Financial gain isn't the only reason to promote things. Hwy43 ( talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.