Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooden Spoon Society

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 per WP:SNOW – PeaceNT 07:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden Spoon Society

Wooden Spoon Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

disputed PROD for unreferenced, NN-charity delete Cornell Rockey 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a newbie at this, What is a "disputed PROD for unreferenced, NN-charity?" What it disputed and what is unreferenced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs).
PROD refers to the {{prod}} template for proposed deletion, which was disputed by its removal. It is unreferenced because it has no reliable sources demonstrating the subject's notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for help, The major reference for justifying the notability of the Charity is its own website which is referenced in the article. I have also now listed the Patron HRH Princess Anne, and several notable (major celebrity in rugby term) names who are Honorary Presidents of the Society - all of whom have their own articles in Wiki. Please help if I have not "properly" cited sources etCheers - the website says it all for me!
Also can I ask why user cornell rockey is removing relevant links from other articles to this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs)
commentBecause you've referenced in the article for the national rugby team that this charity was founded in a bar while watching the national team on TV. Hardly a notable event for the national rugby team, and as such, it doesn't belong in their article. Cornell Rockey 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
'comment Sorry Cornell, but you are making a subjective, incorrect assumption, and I do not believe you are qualified to remove that. The founders were not watching on TV, they had been to the match itself, and were directly influenced by the loss to found the Charity.it was indeed a notable event - an event that has directly led to $25m being raised for disadvantaged children, and the fact that 7 of the England Rugby world cup winning team are currently Honorary Presidents of the Charity is testament itself to the importance felt by the England (and now British and Irish) rugby community to the importance of this singular event in 1983.Gonker44
  • Keep - The article definitely needs a clean-up, but that is all. The charity is notable, just looking at it's patron is enough to convince me of that. Also, with so many members, and the level of money raised, it is very hard to argue that having an article on it is inappropriate. - Shudda talk 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dhartung. Also we have a new user on board here, so lets help a bit to get this one across the line (if that is possible). Gonker44, Wikipedia requires that each article has reliable sources that are independent from the person or company, so the information on their website isnt "enough". We need to find nice news clippings that support the facts. Can you find one that supports the society being established in 1983? John Vandenberg 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to normal keep as the article has been improved to include sources for the important facts. John Vandenberg 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have given the reference directly from the website of the history of the charity. It will celebrate its 25th Anniversary next year. is there any reason to doubt this? The fact that England did not win the Wooden spoon in 1982 or subsequent to 1983 independently verifies the date it was formed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 January 2007 Taking a look at another article - the American Red Cross - I note that the history of it mentioned in the article is referenced directly to its own website, is this incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 January 2007

Gonker44, your link to the website is a self-published source, which means it is not good enough as evidence on the Wikipedia, according to the "Verifiability" policy (you should read this policy). You need to look through the online news clippings (i.e. take a look at these: [1]). This will take more of your time, but the end result is much more useful in an encyclopedia, because then our readers can verify the facts from sources they trust. John Vandenberg 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Dhartung. The Society seems to be well known in rugby circle according to ghits--Vintagekits 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Many thanks to thse who are helping me here. I believe that the consensus of feedback received is that most readers would understand that the Wooden Spoon is a major charity in the UK and Ireland, and deserves an article - one that I do hope will be expanded greatly once I advise the 11,000 members it exists!

What you are asking for is verifiability to the statements of when it was founded etc. Well, back in 1983, it was launched by just 5 people, with no funds, so it is unlikely it attracted much press attention at first. However, I can verify that Spoon has been registered with the official UK Charity Commission since 1984 and have now added this to the article. I hope this satisfies this aspect! gonker44

Gonker44, thanks, that's the sort of source we need. I've reformatted the sources so that additional factoids regarding the source can be annotated and seen by the reader. The syntax for use {{cite web}} can be a bit tricky; if its annoying you, dont bother with it, just use the [url] syntax. John Vandenberg 19:37, 28 January 2007 (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.