Talk:Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents


[edit] Discussion

Please note: contrary to assertions of automated Bots, and of at least one user, this page is NOT blatant advertising and most certainly NOT a violation of copyright.

This is just the first step in creating an encyclopedia-quality article about an important and active advocacy group in Ontario, Canada and the Great Lakes Basin in general.

Give it time, people. Sheesh. StevenBlack 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a category for Charities in general, or Canadian Charities specifically? StevenBlack 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An article "being considered for deletion" is abusively heavy-handed for something that is still in its first round of redaction. StevenBlack 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous supporters

Is this list really relevant to the article? I think it should come out.--SarekOfVulcan 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although the brevity of the list does emphasize the lack of notability of the subject. A similar list for Greenpeace would contain thousands of names. -- But|seriously|folks  02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Gufaw. Once again: I advise you to stop bullying and give this topic time. At the moment, the time spent defending the topic from the likes of you is offensive. Please, KNOCK IT OFF. StevenBlack 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot you own this article and that I am not allowed to express my opinion until you feel the time is right. My error. -- But|seriously|folks  03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
While you are waiting, here's one for you to delete: San Francisco Baykeeper. Also Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. I can list 50 others for you. Meanwhile, until Ive moved beyond the basic outline, please chill. Thank you. StevenBlack 03:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy or AfD? Go ahead and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! No, this is your "crusade" buddy, not mine. Go ahead, I dare you to tag those. In my view all these topics belong in Wikipedia. StevenBlack 05:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggesting they be deleted is a funny way of showing that. Or was that just to make a point? -- But|seriously|folks  05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, YOU are the individual bent on keeping this nascent topic out of Wikipedia. I am showing you that Wikipedia contains many similar topics. While I flesh this topic, why don't you take your crusade elsewhere? Why pick on this topic, and why pick on me repeatedly? KNOCK IT OFF. I am more passionate, and more knowledgeable, about Lake Ontario than you are about harassing me and this topic. Please go away and let me complete my work here. StevenBlack 05:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The topic's not nascent; the article is. My position is that you could take a year to write this article and it would still be deletable per WP:N. -- But|seriously|folks  07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Butseriouslyfolks, the importance of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper in the political and environmental discourse in Canada is not in any doubt, except possibly in your mind. May I ask, where are you located, and what credentials can you present on the topic of political/environmental activism in Canada in general, and in the Great Lakes Basin in particular? It's not enough to just be a curmudgeon here. I have already provided you with citations from ALL of Canada's major networks that support this article per WP:N. I urge you to consider, before you reply, that water is widely viewed as the next "oil", and presuming you are American, this is going to become a huge and very touchy subject in future. Not notable? Get real. StevenBlack 09:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Steve, those cites need to be in this article, or they're not much use. And again, please try to discuss the content, not the editors. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 11:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said the organization was unimportant. But there's a difference between "importance" and "notability". -- But|seriously|folks  15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with removing notable supporters. Celebrities lend their names, faces and talents to organizations as a vote of confidence in the work they do. Agreed it would nice to ref those and explain in what ways they support thus turning that section into prose but certainly gives good encyclopedic information as well as speaking to notability. As a suggestion, it would be helpful to expand that same section to include endorsers like governmental entities and notable politicians, etc who publicly have endorsed the work or even given official recognition, awards, etc. Benjiboi 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also disagree with removing names - although I personally would prefer the section to be written in prose rather than bullet points. Addhoc 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullets better fit the article, organization

What? I'm using this: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html. In other words, Bullets, for text that is easily scanned, which is how users read on the web. Listing facts, actions, and achievements. That's how I see this topic evolving best, most flexibly.

StevenBlack 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullets?
THIS!
IS!
WIKIPEDIAAAAAAA!
--SarekOfVulcan 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Non. Not at this juncture. First things first. I propose, for now, to move the prose banners to this talk page. Objections? StevenBlack 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong ones, yes. These tags put it into a category that might bring someone along who can write better than either one of us.--SarekOfVulcan 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Again, please User_talk:SarekOfVulcan go away. I will not continue to work on this piece of Wikipedia incessantly shadowed by you.

Don't ask if anybody has objections if you don't want to hear them. We give more than a passing nod to consensus here. I also object to the moving of these tags. It is quite irregular and impairs their utility. Editors who specialize in writing cruise those categories looking for pages they can improve. If the tags are on the talk page, they will most likely be ignored as assumed mistakes. Tags like that belong in articles only. The only reason you've given for removing them is that it's too soon. Well, it's never too soon for an article to be improved. Don't take it personally. If the article is improved enough, it might just get kept at AfD. Isn't that what you want? -- But|seriously|folks  07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current advisories for the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper article

The topic is still too nascent for garish banners. We don't know its final structure, what prototypical article it will resemble. Also: the object of discourse is three words. Prose is calcificating at the very time we want fluidity of structure. StevenBlack 06:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's never too soon to improve an article. And this doesn't look much like an article, but a fact sheet. Please read some other articles for examples of how this one should look. -- But|seriously|folks  07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please everyone, the goal is a great encyclopedia that is full of wonderful articles. We don't expect articles to spew forth in finished form and tags simply should support an articles improvement. Let's find constructive ways to improve the article and do our best to dispassionately discuss ways in which the article can improve. Let's assume good faith all around, after all we're talking not just deleting so right there is good will effort. Benjiboi 20:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)