Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longshore Sailing School

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. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longshore Sailing School

Longshore Sailing School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does not assert notability, issues unaddressed since April Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - NN as currently written. Of the two references, the first is simply a captioned picture of the founder and the second 404's. --Daddy.twins (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that notability is dependent upon topic, not presentation. Nevertheless, the current version (with Noroton's great improvements) should assuage your concerns. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I wasn't so much concerned about presentation as with the lack of any reliable, verifiable sources that helped to establish notability. Even as currently written, the only statement in the article that might convey notability is that it "has the largest sailing program for children in the country" from a 2006 article in a local community newspaper with a circulation of 10,000. Additionally, I cannot access the source article, so I'm not confident that this meets reliable or verifiable sources. A search on the newspaper's website for any article about the school results in zero hits. If the claim "the largest sailing program for children in the country" is verified in reliable sources and the cites/refs are strengthened, then it would make a better article. As it stands, it still hasn't proved notability. Regards. -Daddy.twins (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You cite policy but don't follow it. Local newspapers meet the definition of reliable sources used in WP:N. I withdrew the lines about it being the largest sailing school in the country because it came from local newspapers and, as I think about it, local newspapers aren't the best sources for that. They are, however, absolutely adequate to establish notability. You can certainly confirm that. I've offered to email copies of each article to whoever asks for them. Can you refer me to the section at WP:N that requires the school to be the largest in the country in order to be notable? Can you refer me to the section at WP:N that requires it to be nationally notable? Can you refer me to the section of WP:RS that requires a circulation level for a reliable source? Can you refer me to any policy anywhere that requires online sources? Noroton (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Follow up comments are on the talk page. -Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, the article was a travesty stump. I've added multiple, independent, reliable sources that give nontrivial coverage to the school so that it now meets WP:N / WP:ORG standards for notability. The sources, a local daily and a local weekly, state that the school has the largest sailing program for kids in the United States and is one of the largest schools of its type in the country (it also teaches adults, so maybe that's the distinction). Noroton (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor change in wording. I think I was inaccurate and uncivil. Sorry. Noroton (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - from the talk page. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how notability applies in this case. My reading of WP:N includes received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; and, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I still see nothing in any of the cites that are more than incidental coverage - either mentioning classes and rates, or mentioning that some other sailing school employs the founder of this school. We agreed that the claim of being the largest sailing program for children in the country was not verifiable, and you chose to remove it. To me, the remainder of the article doesn't rise to significant, non-trivial coverage. --Regards. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a very popular sailing school with great regional reach. The sources that Noroton has included do prove this. I am affiliated with the school, however and so am biased. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - a review of the added cites/refs has been added to the article talk page. --Daddy.twins (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - this teaching program also claims to be the largest. No reliable independent third party references to support notbility Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep After reading the articles found by Noroton in full, I'd say that this sailing school is most likely notable. Though one of the articles covers the school only secondarily (the primary coverage is of a recently-hired instructor), the other does provide substantial coverage of the school's Greenwich branch. I'll unqualify the keep if other sources are found. Given that the school has been around for over 44 years, I think there's a good chance they exist. Jfire (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (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.