Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Add links
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. And could I ask for just a little less panic and screaming next time, please? Okay, maybe the article shouldn't have been nominated that quickly; but that's why we give people a whole week to discuss and improve them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper[edit]

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nonnotable organization that should be deleted per WP:N and WP:V, as no reliable sources are cited. Originally posted and deleted as a copyvio, then rewritten. Prodded but prod removed by author with edit summary "Removed bot comment".  But|seriously|folks  17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom above. -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [Struck -- see below -- But|seriously|folks  21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance - article includes no more information than is present in Waterkeeper Alliance other than smaller group's date of founding. -Drdisque 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per DrdisqueNeutral -- article shouldn't have been nominated after 90 minutes with the creator still actively editing.Keep -- external references establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve, before you arbitrarily decide what is or isn't notable, or does or doesn't contain, or not contain, the things you're complaining about. Also, Waterkeeper Alliance is a separate organization that served as a model, not a proxy, for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. I think user Butseriouslyfolks is acting badly, and he needs to chill. Thank you. StevenBlack 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sticks and stones, my friend. -- But|seriously|folks  19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your belligerant bullying is not going unnoticed. Please refrain from exercising topics that are nascent. Thank you. StevenBlack 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy If the editor wants to continue working on this article in userspace, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -Chunky Rice 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also consider: currently the Waterkeeper Alliance topic is very thin, and is not much more than a stub. Please refrain from bullying this topic until its contents are more fleshed-out. StevenBlack 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve What the heck, no you don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a kitchen. JuJube 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Ah, so there are no stubs in Wikipedia. StevenBlack 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:NOTABLE:
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Q.E.D. StevenBlack 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting your name into meeting minutes does not constitute notability. I, or anybody, could do that just by showing up. -Chunky Rice 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing "significant". Perhaps you should read that guideline all the way through rather than quote just the bit that matches what you need. — Coren (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no assertion of notability beyond "famous people supporting"; and notability isn't transitive. — Coren (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Coren, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's national broadcaster. Your advice about "read that guideline all the way through" rings hollow. StevenBlack 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your presumption is amusing. I usualy listen to Societé Radio-Canada myself, not the CBC, because I prefer my news in French. Since you like quoting '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' (emph in original). Would you care to show us which the the above sources addresses the subject directly in detail? — Coren (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, that onus, I believe, is on you. Please be specific. StevenBlack 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as you provided the source and claim it meets the criteria, the onus is on you to illustrate exactly how it meets the criteria. A simple claim that it does isn't sufficient. IrishGuy talk 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You believe incorrectly. — Coren (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance unless some serious work takes place in a short while. --Stormbay 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: If I understand correctly, there's a five-day period here. Day 1 was wasted fighting heavyhanded hasty zapping, including a unelateral deletion, by user Butseriouslyfolks. StevenBlack 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper citations for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001[edit]

In addition to the network television citations above, searching Proquest and Osprey Media yields the following articles containing Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001.

Even considering duplicates among sister publications, this should lay to rest that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a "non-notable organization".

From ProQuest, 12 documents found for: ("Lake Ontario Waterkeeper")

 

  1. The Law Foundation of Ontario expands support to public interest organizations Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Jun 6, 2007. p. 1
  2. Canada already has strong green laws - if only we'd police them Paul Webster. The Globe and Mail (Index-only). Toronto, Ont.: May 5, 2007. p. F.9
  3. New Fisheries Act jeopardizes Canada's waters, warns Waterkeeper Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Feb 27, 2007. p. 1
  4. Can our city's lands be reborn? Lisa Rochon. The Globe and Mail (Index-only). Toronto, Ont.: Feb 3, 2007. p. R.12
  5. Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie fights for Lake Ontario ports Hammond, Michael. Canadian Press NewsWire. Toronto: Sep 10, 2006.
  6. Gord Downie and Waterkeeper bring "Heart of A Lake" to Whitby, Port Hope, Kingston Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Aug 28, 2006. p. 1
  7. Burning rubber to generate energy Annette Phillips. Daily Commercial News and Construction Record. Apr 19, 2006. Vol. 79, Iss. 76; p. 1 (2 pages)
  8. Municipal Waste Bound for Kingston? Waterkeeper Voices Concerns About Cement Plant Proposal Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Mar 29, 2006. p. 1
  9. Lake Ontario Water Project children's art exhibit opens at Centennial College Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Feb 9, 2005. p. 1
  10. The Tragically Hip, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper fight for Ontario's water Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Nov 23, 2004. p. 1
  11. The Tragically Hip, Waterkeeper Alliance team up in Vancouver, Kelowna Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Nov 12, 2004. p. 1
  12. Tragically Hip, Kennedy's Waterkeepers team up for cross- country tour Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Nov 11, 2004. p. 1
From a search of Osprey Media Group archives: 155 Documents

Starting at: http://thewhig.com/Archive.aspx?text=Lake+Ontario+Waterkeeper and selecting all newspapers in this consortium, dates between 2001-2007.

  • Niagara Falls Review (ON) - 18/10/2007 - 718 words -- Lifting the sewage veil;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 22/09/2007 - 398 words -- Many area churches going green;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 21/09/2007 - 878 words -- Devices help city track sewage overflow;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 12/09/2007 - 489 words -- Company's attempts fail, Lafarge hearing to continue;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 12/09/2007 - 581 words -- Lafarge review rolls on;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 11/09/2007 - 610 words -- Lafarge appeals review;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 07/09/2007 - 378 words -- Tire-burning plan heads to hearing;
  • Sudbury Star (ON) - 28/07/2007 - 561 words -- Atantic salmon returning to Lake Ontario;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 26/07/2007 - 667 words -- Atlantic salmon return to Lake Ontario;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 26/07/2007 - 524 words -- Winery helps salmon return to Lake Ontario;
  • Welland Tribune (ON) - 26/07/2007 - 534 words -- Anglers hope Atlantic salmon will be successfully reintroduced to ...;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 06/07/2007 - 538 words -- Hot, dry June a boon for area beachgoers;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 21/06/2007 - 366 words -- Stop taking our water for granted;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 08/06/2007 - 537 words -- Date set for tire fire hearing;
  • Owen Sound Sun Times (ON) - 01/06/2007 - 250 words -- New law to protect Great Lakes water;
  • Welland Tribune (ON) - 01/06/2007 - 188 words -- Great Lakes protection bill passes final vote in Ontario legislature;
  • Sault Star (ON) - 01/06/2007 - 220 words -- Bill to protect Great Lakes wins final vote;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 23/04/2007 - 603 words -- Opponents stoked for Lafarge fight;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 11/04/2007 - 325 words -- Rockers fight plan to burn old tires;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 05/04/2007 - 733 words -- Opponents win hearing on Lafarge;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 05/04/2007 - 482 words -- Lafarge plan opponents can appeal decision;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 26/03/2007 - 864 words -- Woodcarvers meet;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 08/03/2007 - 712 words -- A fight over fish habitat;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 15/02/2007 - 572 words -- Churches join forces on environmental issues;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 09/02/2007 - 497 words -- Protect lakes: report;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 06/02/2007 - 442 words -- Lafarge, opponents to air views to council;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 25/01/2007 - 463 words -- Ottawa approves LLRW report;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - 25/01/2007 - 465 words -- Ottawa approves LLRW report;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 10/01/2007 - 491 words -- Mayor should meet with premier;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 10/01/2007 - 610 words -- Tire-burning experiment is a slap in the face to community;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 08/01/2007 - 554 words -- Cloud of concern drifts to city;
  • Sudbury Star (ON) - 06/01/2007 - 271 words -- Groups file requests to appeal tire burning;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 06/01/2007 - 463 words -- Company plans to burn tires;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 06/01/2007 - 595 words -- Appeals aim to douse plan;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 06/01/2007 - 657 words -- 11 appeals filed to stop burning of tires at Lafarge;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 05/01/2007 - 678 words -- Lafarge opponents up against deadline;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 29/12/2006 - 667 words -- Issue burns in Bath;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 29/12/2006 - 1182 words -- Storied stories springing up in 2006;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 23/12/2006 - 857 words -- Lafarge plan a 'test';
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 23/12/2006 - 159 words -- Lafarge can test burning tires and trash at Bath;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 22/12/2006 - 197 words -- Lafarge can test burn tires, trash at Bath;
  • Sault Star (ON) - 22/12/2006 - 147 words -- Lafarge gets OK to do test burn of tires and trash at cement plant;
  • Brantford Expositor (ON) - 22/12/2006 - 168 words -- Lafarge can test burning tires, trash;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 22/12/2006 - 201 words -- Lafarge allowed to burn tires;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 10/11/2006 - 96 words -- Fundraising is focus of workshops;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 24/10/2006 - 563 words -- Great Lakes agreement outdated, report says;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 24/10/2006 - 614 words -- Cast off Great Lakes treaty: report;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 04/10/2006 - 1093 words -- Ontario sewage standards stink;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - 02/10/2006 - 141 words -- Thanks for supporting clean water;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 02/10/2006 - 142 words -- Thanks for supporting clean water;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 22/09/2006 - 61 words -- Music and a message;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 20/09/2006 - 55 words -- [Lead celebrity in the Waterkeeper's Heart of the Lake Tour...];
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - 19/09/2006 - 393 words -- Waterkeeper tour stops in Port Hope tonight;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 18/09/2006 - 391 words -- Waterkeeper tour stops here Tuesday;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 16/09/2006 - 509 words -- Tragically Hip singer fights for Lake Ontario ports;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 14/09/2006 - 184 words -- Fall attractions at Capitol;
  • Timmins Daily Press (ON) - 12/09/2006 - 245 words -- Tragically Hip singer fights for ports;
  • Welland Tribune (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 483 words -- Fighting for Lake Ontario ports;
  • North Bay Nugget (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 328 words -- Gord Downie fights for Lake Ontario ports;
  • Cornwall Standard-Freeholder (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 331 words -- Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie fights for Lake Ontario ports;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 472 words -- Tragically Hip front man to step up for Lake Ontario;
  • Sault Star (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 449 words -- Tragically Hip singer fights for lake ports;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 72 words -- Downie fights for Lake Ontario;
  • Niagara Falls Review (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 295 words -- Hip's Downie fights for Lake Ontario ports;
  • Orillia Packet and Times (ON) - 11/09/2006 - 181 words -- Downie fights for Lake Ontario ports;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 09/09/2006 - 99 words -- Group opposes plan for Great Lakes firing ranges;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 08/09/2006 - 479 words -- Tests make waves;
  • Northumberland Weekly (ON) - 08/09/2006 - 977 words -- Farmers, GRCA and County Warden criticize Clean Water Act;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 02/09/2006 - 1682 words -- Waxing aplenty at the Goat, while Gord Downie sings for the lake;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 02/09/2006 - 83 words -- Downie has his heart in the lake;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 31/08/2006 - 977 words -- Farmers, GRCA and Mayor Austin criticize Clean Water Act;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - 31/08/2006 - 977 words -- Farmers, GRCA and County Warden criticize Clean Water Act;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 29/08/2006 - 544 words -- Tragically Hip frontman to visit Port Hope;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 29/08/2006 - 115 words -- Rocker performs for water group;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 16/08/2006 - 570 words -- Life's not a beach;
  • Welland Tribune (ON) - 16/08/2006 - 492 words -- St. Catharines beaches unsafe for swimming;
  • Owen Sound Sun Times (ON) - 16/08/2006 - 537 words -- Environment group calling for province to enforce beach water stan...;
  • Sudbury Star (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 387 words -- Group called for beach water quality standards;
  • Sault Star (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 380 words -- Open beaches 'not optional';
  • Timmins Daily Press (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 541 words -- Public swimming areas need higher standards, group says;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 513 words -- Environmental group calling for province to enforce beach water qu...;
  • Peterborough Examiner (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 298 words -- Too many beaches closed: environmental watchdog;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 269 words -- Mandatory beach standards urged;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 325 words -- Group wants province to enforce beach rules;
  • Orillia Packet and Times (ON) - 15/08/2006 - 103 words -- Group calls for Ont. to enforce beach quality;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 05/08/2006 - 1151 words -- Tire-burning concerns worthy of investigation;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 31/07/2006 - 407 words -- Group wants dead fish hotline;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 27/07/2006 - 1239 words -- Hot air about tire-burning;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 21/07/2006 - 1079 words -- Beach life's no beach anymore;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 21/07/2006 - 1585 words -- Lafarge's plan really stinks;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - 28/06/2006 - 155 words -- Water pollution in Lake Ontario is keeping the summer crowds away ...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 28/06/2006 - 731 words -- Leafing through Belle Park's options;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - 17/06/2006 - 1365 words -- Concrete plans;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - 08/06/2006 - 257 words -- Summertime, and the beaches are...;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - 08/06/2006 - 258 words -- Summertime, and the beaches are...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 06/05/2006 - 250 words -- Kingston can do more on sewage;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 15/04/2006 - 244 words -- Burning debate loses sight of lake;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 13/04/2006 - 518 words -- City's sewage system gets relief: Overflow tank to protect river f...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 10/03/2006 - 355 words -- Let's not get burned;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 09/03/2006 - 761 words -- A burning issue: Group protests Lafarge's plan to use tires as fuel;
  • Dunnville Chronicle (ON) - Final - 15/02/2006 - 718 words -- Power to the people?;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 23/12/2005 - 701 words -- Raw sewage spew spurs review: Ministry checks on city policy;
  • Dunnville Chronicle (ON) - Final - 21/12/2005 - 794 words -- Nuclear power in Nanticoke?;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 17/12/2005 - 614 words -- City avoids stricter sewage-spill rules;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 15/12/2005 - 846 words -- Cataraqui pollution fight over;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - Final - 01/12/2005 - 441 words -- More sewage dumped into Bay of Quinte: Too much rain for system to...;
  • Pembroke Daily Observer (ON) - Final - 24/11/2005 - 390 words -- Province won't lay charges in spill;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 23/11/2005 - 673 words -- City escapes charges on spring sewage bypass: Syringes, condoms, t...;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - Final - 16/11/2005 - 732 words -- Dioxins not a threat to drinking water: Ministry: Contamination fo...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 04/11/2005 - 147 words -- Stopping sewage overflows should be priority;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - Final - 27/09/2005 - 513 words -- Storms overwhelm city facility: Sewage released into Bay of Quinte;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 23/09/2005 - 310 words -- Nuclear meeting to focus on health;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 24/08/2005 - 497 words -- Farmer faces fines after massive manure spill: Meanwhile, a much l...;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - Final - 10/08/2005 - 287 words -- Full panel SEU review is needed;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 10/08/2005 - 286 words -- Full-panel SEU review is needed;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 29/07/2005 - 177 words -- More hollow words from Cameco;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 07/07/2005 - 951 words -- Federal investigators to inspect yacht club's retaining wall: Form...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 18/06/2005 - 555 words -- Cause of oil spill leaves authorities baffled: Joel Stone Beach cl...;
  • Belleville Intelligencer (ON) - Final - 10/06/2005 - 445 words -- Time to stop dumping sewage into waterways;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 09/06/2005 - 208 words -- Waterkeeper slams pro-nuclear editorial;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 08/06/2005 - 411 words -- Sewage is our 'special need';
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 07/06/2005 - 860 words -- City's sewage bypass practice 'must stop': Environmental groups wa...;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - Final - 06/06/2005 - 202 words -- Nuclear power view disagreeable;
  • Northumberland Weekly (ON) - Final - 03/06/2005 - 182 words -- Joint effort: Local citizens groups join counterparts in call for ...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 24/05/2005 - 302 words -- Joint effort: Local citizens groups join counterparts in call for ...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 20/05/2005 - 342 words -- Suzuki lecture raised $2,500 for health studies;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 16/04/2005 - 1297 words -- More waste washes up on Wolfe's shores: Island residents alarmed a...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 13/04/2005 - 643 words -- City urged to give notice before spewing sewage: Province should l...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 06/04/2005 - 816 words -- Millions of litres of sewage dumped in area waters: Condoms, tampo...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 24/02/2005 - 444 words -- No guarantee waste is safe;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 22/02/2005 - 257 words -- Environmental group to keep an eye on city's beaches;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 22/02/2005 - 270 words -- Cameco, Zircatec hearings open to public;
  • Northumberland Weekly (ON) - Final - 11/02/2005 - 277 words -- Lake Ontario waterkeeper requests licensing hearing be delayed;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 08/02/2005 - 623 words -- Group wants to clean up old Wolfe Island canal;
  • Orillia Packet and Times (ON) - Final - 08/02/2005 - 1134 words -- Wading through the muck: Orillia is not the first community to try...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 05/02/2005 - 370 words -- FARE at CNSC: 20 members intervening at commission hearings;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 01/02/2005 - 278 words -- Lake Ontario waterkeeper requests Cameco licensing hearing be delayed;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 28/01/2005 - 1128 words -- Top court rejects city's Belle Park appeal: Environmentalists hail...;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 26/11/2004 - 615 words -- City should protect river, not alter it: Group: Lake Ontario Water...;
  • Owen Sound Sun Times (ON) - Final - 13/10/2004 - 599 words -- Ontario farmers lose at political game: Nutrient management is one...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 05/10/2004 - 222 words -- Group demands full-panel review;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 09/09/2004 - 833 words -- Lake Ontario suffers high pollution year;
  • North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 05/08/2004 - 234 words -- Musicians to entertain protesters in Hamilton;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 26/07/2004 - 526 words -- Waterkeeper opposes draft pact;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 14/05/2004 - 785 words -- Belle Park could be landmark case: Lawyer says toxin's environment...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 03/03/2004 - 394 words -- SEU screening falls short: Waterkeeper says community deserves to ...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 04/02/2004 - 117 words -- Public participation part of the process;
  • Sault Star (ON) - Final - 04/02/2004 - 703 words -- Wawa traprock venture needs study: group: Consequences could be 'd...;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 30/01/2004 - 325 words -- Watchdogs' call for review gets support;
  • Sault Star (ON) - Final - 21/01/2004 - 409 words -- Caught in own traprock;
  • Cobourg Daily Star (ON) - Final - 11/12/2003 - 433 words -- Port Hope groups first in hall of fame;
  • Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) - Final - 11/12/2003 - 265 words -- Fletcher honoured for action in Belle Park pollution case;
  • Port Hope Evening Guide (ON) - Final - 10/12/2003 - 434 words -- Port Hope groups first in Hall of Fame;
  • St. Catharines Standard (ON) - Final - 23/08/2003 - 270 words -- Forty paddlers crossing lake in outrigger canoes;
  • Sault Star (ON) - Final - 07/10/2002 - 261 words -- Review is wrong vision for Great Lakes communities;

StevenBlack 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive number of citations. Would you care to point out one that is about the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper as opposed to simple trivial mention, reprint of a press release, or by the L.O.W.? — Coren (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added one to the main article, in the "Notes" section, that I found on Google News. Not sure what useful info I could bring out of the cite, but it did appear to meet the notability criteria. Just need a couple more like that, and we're set.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Finally! I don't think it's quite enough, but it's certainly a good source— I'd expect the impending litigation mentioned in the article might have generated more press if it panned out. — Coren (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Coren, of ALL of the recently posted citations, I don't see ANY that are "by the L.O.W.", as you put it. Certainly NONE of the citations by the CBC, CTV, The Globe, or Osprey Media Group are ""reprint of press release"-type citations. Forgive me for asking, but what is it that I don't "get" about notability guidelines that you do, claiming "I don't think it's quite enough" as if, objectively, the article should not be granted the benefit and discretion of any doubt at this EARLY stage? What is the magic pixie-dust that I'm just not seeing in the requirements as interpreted by you? I think it's pretty clear by now that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has had, and continues to have, significant influence on the environmental and political discourse in Canada at the Municipal, Provincial, and Federal levels. Moreover these citations -- many of which are not free online from Newspapers (this being Canada) -- are all about LOW acting in its advocacy capacity that I hope to have demonstrated here. What do you need, a Home-and-Garden profile about the LOW? What else do you need to be convinced? Please enlighten me. StevenBlack 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Who is trying patiently to figure this out).[reply]
Well, let's start with the Osprey articles. The first one, "Lifting the sewage veil" quotes them as a "prominent environmental group", but doesn't speak about their work. For the third, "Devices help city track sewer overflow", they are again quoted in a story about someone else. There is, however, a paragraph about them: "Organizations such as Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and the Canadian Environmental Law Association have been working with the Ministry of the Environment for years to require the City of Kingston and other cities with aging infrastructure to decrease the amount of untreated sewage going into watercourses." I don't know if that rises to the level of meeting WP:N, but it's close. And so on.--SarekOfVulcan 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of posting google searches and other lists of potential sources, why don't you just pick out the best 3 and post them here? That would be a lot more useful. -Chunky Rice 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Discussion[edit]

  • Keep Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a fairly prominent advocacy organization in Ontario, and has participated in a number of high-profile environmental campaigns (the best known of which is probably the drive to prevent Lafarge Canada Ltd. from burning tires in Bath). There's enough material to create a viable article, and the group is clearly notable enough for inclusion. More to the point, they are autonomous from Waterkeeper Alliance.
  • (I'm somewhat puzzled by the direction this afd has taken, truth be told. Some people seem to be dismissing the article out of hand, when it hasn't even been allowed to take shape). CJCurrie 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it fails WP:ORG. J 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like it easily passes WP:ORG, especially in light of teh quote below. StevenBlack 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION: In a discussion with a communications officer for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, the following is made evident:

I don't know all the requirements of Wikipedia, but there is no doubt that we should be distinguished from Waterkeeper Alliance. There are over 160 Waterkeepers in the world, all part of the Waterkeeper Alliance...however, each group operates autonomously

and while similar strategies are used, each group has a different mandate depending on the local issues affecting the water body.

THEREFORE it appears that a merge or redirect would not be appropriate. StevenBlack 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just find a few good sources, stick them in the article and that will be all that is needed. An assertion by the organization is certainly not sufficient to show notability. Whether or not they are autonomous has no relevance on whether they should be featured as part of a larger topic or independently. -Chunky Rice 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Notes section now. Is a $450,000 Settlement against the City of Hamilton , a $120,000 decision against Kingston Ontario, and the trigger for a $250 Million remediation plan for Port Granby, Ontario back in 2001 sufficient for all your notability concerns? StevenBlack 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to Lake Ontario Waterkeepers notability? I'm inclined, at this point, to think that this group probably meets our notability standards, but you're really not doing a very good job showing it. -Chunky Rice 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXCUSE ME? Above you said: Unless I'm missing something, none of these seem to support notability. -Chunky Rice 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Was it me "really not doing a very good job showing it", or was that you being lazy? It was in ProQuest. StevenBlack 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article, the Hamilton and Kingston matters had nothing to do with the subject organization. They were pursued by a separate organization that happens to have shared a principal. The Granby matter is only cited to a yachting magazine, which may or may not qualify as a reliable source. -- But|seriously|folks  06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem seems to be, Butseriouslyfolks, that you don't seem to understand what advocacy work means. For example, LOW was instrumental in initating Janet Fletcher's Belle Park private prosecution against the City of Kingston, but they didn't actually act as counsel. There are other, similar cases. They also have a constant presence on the Lake that have led to a number of successful cases. These are in the annual reports which I am sure you've read by now. Do you understand the concept of providing legal advice to community groups? LOW is a widely recognized environmental justice advocacy group in Canada. StevenBlack 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject was involved in those matter, you need to say that in the article, not at AfD. It the article that has to demonstrate notability. You also need to include citations to independent reliable sources that back up those assertions, not just the organization's own annual reports. -- But|seriously|folks  07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you will find that Wikipedia editors are very familiar with what "advocacy" means, and that you are doing a fine job of it. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for advocacy. You need to demonstrated notability, not how good LOW is at what they do. — Coren (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Coren, can you help me: how does one create a Wikipedia article about a notable environmental justice advocacy group if advocacy is taboo? If you just give me the suggestions, I'll make it work. StevenBlack 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the below discussion about sources. Delete pending better sources. Sorry but I have to agree with Chunky Rice here. All you got so far is a promotional description of the people and things this organization has been involved in. Slap a phone number on that and we should be charging for the hosting costs ;). What you need is more secondary reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Once you got those WP:N will also be fulfilled at the same time. If people would focus more on WP:V notability would be far far less of an issue in deletion discussions. Here is a hint: The organization is a primary source. We do not rely on primary sources except in rare cases of more of less trivial information that just needs attribution. Read up on the difference between primary and secondary sources and thjen return top WP:V and understand why the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. EconomicsGuy 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question I ask coren above: how does one create a Wikipedia article about a notable environmental justice advocacy group if advocacy is taboo? If you just give me the suggestions, I'll make it work. Also: Can we agree that Yachting Canada is probably an acceptable source of material considering we're talking about an advocacy group for all of Lake Ontario? StevenBlack 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Since we have two realiable sources with non-trivial coverage this is somewhat moot by now but the way to do this is to find good reliable sources before you create the article and then add them either in the first version or immediately after you created the article. You now have two examples of what a reliable source with non-trivial coverage is. If you have further questions or doubts about sources never hesitate to ask. EconomicsGuy 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per others with the same vote. --Cheeser1 08:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone reading the Notes section? That's where ample notability lies, especially items there linking to McCutcheon, Duff, in Yachting Canada. In what section are you expecting to see signals of notability? It's all there, but most of you are apparently not trying very hard to work with me here. StevenBlack 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a breakdown of understanding here. The subject of the article must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources. An article that cites LOW does not provide non-trivial coverage of LOW. So far the only good source is the Yachting Canada article and you need more than that. EconomicsGuy 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree that Yachting Canada is a qualified source for Lake Ontario Issues? If not, why not? StevenBlack 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Yachting Canada article is a good example of an article providing non-trivial coverage by a reliable secondary source. You need more of those and less press releases, brief mentions of LOW and references to the LOW website. EconomicsGuy 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EconGuy, how about the Toronto Eye Magazine article I linked to? It's non-trivial, and it looks reliable at first blush.--SarekOfVulcan 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that could work since it seems to be produced by a reliable source. Okay, so we got Canadian Yachting and the Toronto Eye Magazine article. That should get you off the hook but you still need to add more sources like that and fewer that are just press releases or references to the LOW website. EconomicsGuy 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (deindent) I agree that those two sources are sufficient to show notability. Now, if they end up in the article I will change my !vote accordingly.

    For the record, StevenBlack, part of the reason you have been getting a bad reaction here is because you cannot expect the editors in AfD to do the work for you. If you had been a little more partient and created the article with those sources, it would almost certainly never have been put up for AfD at all. — Coren (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, please, pay attention. What you write above is REVISIONIST HISTORY. The AfD appeared without warning on Day 1, Hour 2 during first edits of the article. The article had already been deleted by butseriouslyfolks, whose actions were more consistent with that of a troll than an admin, and I treated it as such until things were belatedly clarified. I have initiated a mediation within Wikipedia because butseriouslyfolks deserves all the pushback he's getting, and he's not complying with repeated requests to step back and defer to someone I can actually work with. He's corrosive, and I will not tolerate being bullied by him. Coren, you are not much help. Your warped bot started all this, and from you I got nothing but flip and dismissive comments about the object of discourse. -- StevenBlack 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your general tone is also not winning you any friends. You have been repeatedly warned to remain civil already (by several editors). You overuse of bold, aggressive tone, insertion of large walls of text, and edit warring are making it very hard of any point you may have to come across. — Coren (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the distinct impression that, throughout this case, you've spent more time typing than you've spent listening and trying to understand. Your flip comments appear to have little actual thought behind them. Your assertion that this AfD was avoidable on some grounds is simply ludicrous. This topic was never given any slack, and you've made things worse, not better. This is not "warring", this is calling your gratuitous cheap shots for what they are. StevenBlack 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Folks, just a reminder that AFD is a court of last resort. And I quote from WP:AFD, Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Perhaps an {{unref}} tag might have been in order since this was clearly a newly created article that was still being worked on. -- Whpq 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a court of last resort for a number of reasons. (Consensus can change, and if an article is AfD'd on notability grounds, it can be reposted if the notability problems are repaired.) There was no way for me to know that the article was still being worked on. It had been deprodded and abandoned for over an hour with no effort being made to fix the problems. It was not until a few days into the AfD process that the author started properly addressing the issues. Also, since the author removed the prod (and later aggressively removed the AfD and cleanup templates), there's no reason to believe a cleanup template or note on the talk page would have had any effect. Yes, ordinarily, I would agree with you. But after the copyvio, recreation, deprodding and abandonment of this article, I believe I acted reasonably. -- But|seriously|folks  17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth the AfD actually did work since more people got involved in the process of seeking consensus which is the primary reason for having an AfD rather than a speedy deletion. Judging from the creator's attitude even after notability has been established he wasn't much help though. EconomicsGuy 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the concept of a beleaguered contributor, being struck at every turn by wiki zealots, is beyond your capacity of understanding. This whole thing is a sick joke. First a bot appears, then an unknown user acting very much like like a troll, first deleting the article then effectively "black listing" it, then belittling the object of discourse at every turn, and this is what, normal for you guys? StevenBlack 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beleagured? You've been dishing out all of the abuse and namecalling. Everybody else is sticking to the facts and trying to make Wikipedia better. You're dead set on construing others' comments about the article as personal attacks and using them as an excuse to justify your own uncivil behavior. Please step back so that this mundane and unexciting AfD process can proceed to its conclusion without more histrionics. -- But|seriously|folks  17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StevenBlack please try to understand the amounts of edits and new articles we have to deal with every day. We are a top 10 website run entirely by volunteers. We require that those who contribute articles provide proper sourcing to begin with, alternatively ask for help first or start out by creating an article in user space and then work on it while learning from editing other articles alongside established editors. I'm sorry if we haven't fulfilled your expectations but like I said we are volunteers trying to run a top 10 website in our spare time. Also, please don't mark all your edits as minor, thank you. EconomicsGuy 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SO, when does the AfD come down? Or is this article, and by extension this organization, permanently wiki-besmirched? StevenBlack 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The banner is removed when the AfD is closed. When that is just depends on how quickly admins can get through the backlog. -Chunky Rice 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that you stop insisting that the people who, in good faith, asked us to consider deleting this article were somehow out to get you, or "wiki-besmirch" the subject of this article. It's extraordinarily inappropriate and rude. --Cheeser1 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's extraordinarily inappropriate and rude to delete articles, then to slap an AfD on it in its first hours, and to belittle its subject. You may have all the links at hand, but that doesn't make you correct. A garish banner on an article besmirches it. It discourages people from contributing to it by clearly implying it won't be around much longer. Frankly, I am getting tired of self-rightous patrician indignation from some members here. Of course I assumed good faith. To continue to do so in this case would require the suspension of disbelief. I got zero courtesy from Butseriouslyfolks, and I want things put right. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. 24.226.38.121 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (User StevenBlack from an allied machine)[reply]
Um, that's what the AfD process is there for. The only person who's being self-righteous is you. BSF acted civilly, but there's a number of instances where you attacked and insulted other users. His actions were perfectly warranted - when he nominated the article for deletion, it did not meet the mark. No article should, at any time, fall short of what's required (even within the first hour), and if it does, it is subject to a nomination for deletion. Note that BSF didn't delete anything, he simply started a discussion that has lead to improvements in the article (and, importantly, revisions of the article that make it conform to policy). --Cheeser1 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just like to share a semi-relevant comment from the first VfD one of my articles went through.

We interrupt this process for an important Howdy.

Hi! This is Tom Smith. For what it's worth, I didn't create the page, and barely knew of its existence, and wouldn't know it was up for deletion except that someone told me. My only reason for posting this now is a little bit of good-natured self defense.

I've been writing music and performing (and filking) for about twenty years. I've got seven albums, including a brand-new one just off to the duplicator this week. Larry Niven has compared me with Tom Lehrer; Dr. Demento has featured me on the Funny Five; I wrote the official song for Talk Like A Pirate Day. I've been a guest at about a hundred conventions in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, and have (to my surprise and delight) fans around the world.

And I genuinely don't know what is meant by "more Tom Smith vanity nonsense". I have one web page to sell my albums, and another for my LiveJournal (note that I am not putting those links here); I don't spam, don't overload rec.music.filk, and don't advertise myself all over other message boards and comment sections.

If this page goes, it goes. If it stays, it stays. But I did not put it here. I don't need a vanity page. Is all I'm sayin'.

Thanks,

Tom

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/Lake_Ontario_Waterkeeper&oldid=1136110776"