Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Five Creeks

Add links
Source: 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Five Creeks

Friends of the Five Creeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:CLUB at all. All references except one in the article are from minor publications, and by the articles own admission, it's biggest claim to fame is "The organization has daylighted and restored a portion of the creek along the parking lot of El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center.[4] Further down stream part of the creek runs through Pacific East Mall's parking lot." Additionally all of the clubs parent and affiliate organizations are redlinked. I would prefer to preserve the information by merging it to the Cerrito Creek article, which already makes mention of organization. But otherwise, just delete, based on the consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Many of references in the article are from blogs, listings, announcements on local event calendars, or even Friend of the Five Creeks own website, but the article only contains one reference (from the San Fransisco Chronicle) in which Friends of the Five Creeks was the main topic of a published work. It is unlikely that this article (at this point in time) will be able to find more articles about itself, since it only gets 18 google hits, most of which are at 101010berkeley.org. But above all, The article doesnt assert that it has done anything notable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article clearly meets the general notability guideline. The nominator suggested deletion hastily the moment the article was created and did not allow any time for expansion and an initial draft. The nominator has not tried to help make any improvements. Daylighting and the locations thereof are not the article's claim to fame. Its sourced material on being a prominent charity organization as stated in numerous appearances in the San Francisco Chronicle and Berkeley Daily Planet are what make it notable, its fame is irrelevant but its notability is established as per wikipedia guidelines. Redlinks are entirely a non sequitor here, as those articles or lack therof is not what is up for consideration, and furthermore not all are redlinked, Citizens for Eastshore Parks stands out. The information should not be merged with Cerrito Creek because the article is not about Cerrito Creek and information on the other creeks, parks, and the organization's history would not make sense in an article about Cerrito Creek.Thisbites (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (NOTE: Thisbites is the author and a principal editor of the article.)[reply]
Keep It is an exaggeration to say this article does not meet CLUB "at all", a moment of searching finds a reference by the European Social Ecology Institute which immediately makes this an unclear case as that is hardly a local publication, it is international. There seems every prospect of further national and possibly international sources being added in the near future. Before this AfD was raised I recommended on the article talk page that a merge discussion might be suitable, I certainly would agree that if an article on the parent organization existed this might be a possible merge candidate. The article was created 4 days ago and unfortunately by failing to engage in the current article talk page discussion about possible merge options and giving potential consensus a chance, the nominator has failed to follow the WP:BEFORE guidelines (points 4,5,6 and 10); disappointing for someone who made a point of saying that they were an admin in the article talk page discussion. I am not an admin and I understand that it happens to be irrelevant here as my opinion has no more weight in this discussion than anyone else's and should be judged on its merit rather than my status. Fæ (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick visit to the talk page will show I hav not violated WP:BEFORE (which is not a policy by the way, just a shortcut to a helpful list). Let's talk about the aticles and not each other.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, you clearly did not follow those steps. Furthermore you are not engaging in any discussion whatsoever. This article meets the GNG.Thisbites (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the word "guidelines" to describe BEFORE not "policy", these are an established consensus of the steps you should take in order to avoid the nomination being labelled "spurious or thoughtless" (as quoted from BEFORE). The start of BEFORE points to the policy WP:ATD which it is directly based on. Sticking to the article as suggested, I have already pointed out that a merge discussion was on-going on the article talk page, it is quite clear that an AfD should not be raised whilst there is the possiblity of a consensus being reached for a merge. My opinion in this AfD will remain Keep rather than Merge as the existing merge discussion is sufficient and it seems rather pointless to duplicate it and clearly against policy (WP:ATD) to delete this page whilst there is a prospect of a merge. Fæ (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as per your advice I have visited the article talk page and associated change history. My reading of events is that you PRODded the article before discussing any potential merge. I am unclear exactly how this demonstrates your application of the BEFORE guidelines. Fæ (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have struck my comments from this discussion as the nomination has been tampered with in this edit, made after my opinion was added which is a blatant failure to meet the WP:REDACT guidelines. After discussion with the nominator on their talk page and mine, they believe that AfD pages are not talk pages and need not comply with this policy. If these edits remain in place, changing the basis of the nomination after three people have already expressed their opinions and discussed detail then I consider this AfD invalidated and ask for an administrator to close this deletion nomination on that basis. Fæ (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the user Fæ is apparently upset that I added the number of ghits for the Friends of Five Creeks. I failed to include it originally, although that's pretty common at AfD. I've never heard of anyone cancelling an AfD for that reason.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing a rationale in the nomination (rather than adding later newly dated notes in the discussion thread) it makes it appear as if previous opinions expressed were in response to the new nomination, thereby falsely representing the opinions given. Though anyone is free to revise their opinion, changes should be dated and (preferably) explained. The changes you have made are not minor corrections to typos, they are controversial as they materially change the rationale of the nomination. I have not seen an AfD cancelled on this basis before, but then, I have not seen this type of retrospective substantive change to the nomination before. It is treated as a serious issue and I have seen people blocked for persistently failing to comply with WP:REDACT. Fæ (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in either the original nomination or the subsequent amendment to that nomination is cause for invalidating the AFD. If circumstances change during the nomination - the article is moved to another title, a similar article is added as a co-nom, or whatever - a comment noting the fact is sufficient to indicate that posts before that comment did not take it into account. Your post here noting the change to the nomination is sufficient for this purpose - it is clear to any admin reviewing this AFD that edits before 22:59, 28 January 2011 did not take the amended nomination into account. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that everyone expressing an opinion here (save for the nominator and myself) has moved to Keep the article - you really think it's worthwhile to start the AFD over? Might be simpler just to let it be. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Material facts were added to the original nomination making it appear to pre-date comments made in response by other editors. My observation would have been expressed differently had I been responding to the changed version rather than the original, that is why I have struck out my observations until the nomination is restored. I doubt the outcome of this AfD would be different either way but that does not make the redactions by Esprit15d acceptable and the behavioural guidelines are clear as to the limits of what would be acceptable. Fæ (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, your comments very clearly do not reference the current version of the nomination - you just said so. Given that the original nomination is in the history (here), the reviewing admin (or whomever) can easily tell what you were referring to - and thus your comments are easily read in context. Hell, when I close an AFD, I sometimes read through the diffs to see the flow of the debate - and, thus, the revised nom wouldn't even matter since it would occur chronologically. You're obviously upset about this, but your position is clear - and will be given its due merit when the closing admin takes a look at this debate. If you have further concerns about the validity of this AFD, your proper venue will likely be the AFD talk page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than upset, I'm more taken aback by finding two sysops who believe that WP:REDACT does not apply to AfDs as any confusion can be worked around. This runs counter to my understanding of AfDs and my intuition. I'll consider taking it up longer term at a WT page as you suggest in order to make the behavioural guideline unambiguous and explicit for AfDs if that is required for it to apply here. Fæ (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To end this issue that is unrelated to the topic of this article's notability and discouraging all parties involved, I reverted my changes, and added an additional, timestamped comment (about the ghits) that is more clearly written.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Berkeley Daily Planet and San Francisco Chronicle are not minor publications, most of the references mention the topic, a pair are simply there to provide supporting information, but that does imply that the rest of the references and coverage does not reflect the subject. Furthermore most of the references have nothing to do with the 101010berkelry.org website, I have never eve heard of it. And lastly there are two red links, only one of which is for an organization at this time.Thisbites (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of coverage found at Google News [1], but you have to look under "Friends of Five Creeks" instead of "Friends of the Five Creeks" as this article title has it. ("Friends of the Five Creeks" returns nothing at all at Google News.) The group's website also says "Friends of Five Creeks", so I suggest the article be renamed to Friends of Five Creeks if kept. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for your participation, 71 hits is not a lot (1,827 would be a lot) and, again, most of it is from that same berkeley local periodical.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I was talking about Google News, not Google. Google News hits do not run into the hundreds of thousands as Google hits do, and 71 IS a lot. It would not be impressive if they were all from the Berkeley Daily Planet, but there are also items from the San Francisco Chronicle [2] [3], the Oakland Tribune [4] [5], and other regional papers. This adds up to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There, I just added several of these links to the article. In the process I learned that this is no trivial group. They have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, and they organize 40 or more work parties each year. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Esprit15d, you did it again! You originally said that an impressive number of hits would be 827,000, but after I pointed out that Google News searches do not provide hundreds of thousands of hits, you went back and changed the number to 1,827 - making my comment look pointless or even stupid. You really shouldn't go back and change things you said after people have reacted to them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO I DID NOT! Look in the history here. And you will see I made my edits 8minutes before you sent yours, and actually we are editing over top of each other, becasue I am getting edit notices. That said. Just to clarify, I was fully aware you referring to Google News and that the San Fransisco Chronicle was one of the sources. That said, many notable (though regional) organizations can get coverage from more sources (eg. Heal the Bay (2,760) or Save Our Shore (810)) and from a wider pool (regional, state or even national sources). It's not just about hits, although that is useful. It's that Friends of Five Creeks (at this point in time) has not had that reach, and has not done anything especially notable that I've come across in its WP article or in the few other sources I've read. This is not personal for me at all, and I love environmental organizations of all stripes and sizes, but I don't see how this particular one meets WP:GNG or WP:CLUB.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my comment in response to your original number, but when I went to submit it, it was refused due to an edit conflict (apparently that was you, changing the number). I copied my comments and immediately submitted them again, as most people would (rather than rereading the entire article to see if something has changed). Basically I just think you should not change something substantively once you have posted it - someone may be in the process of responding, as I was. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing administrator please note, the article has now been moved to "Friends of Five Creeks" over a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to comment on Esprit15d's reference to the number of Google hits as being a reason to delete the article: In the first place, the number of Google hits is not a valid criterion; in fact it is listed under WP:GOOGLE as an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". In the second place, the organization gets 39,900 hits [6] - not "only 18". --MelanieN (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friends_of_the_Five_Creeks&oldid=1069022933"