Talk:Ryde Inshore Rescue Service

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Wight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of the Isle of Wight in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of WightWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of WightTemplate:WikiProject Isle of WightIsle of Wight-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Water sports Low‑importance

	Ryde Inshore Rescue Service is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion of Ryde Lifeboat Station[edit]

Keep Why do you think that this Independent Rescue Organisation is any less notable than many of the other articles on the encyclopaedia that already exist? Examples such as: Gosport Lifeboat Station, Mundesley Lifeboat Station, This article is in the early stages of development and should be kept until it has been fully developed. Cheeseladder (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus may or may not support me, and whatever they decide, they decide; the only way to find out what the community thinks is to ask them by bringing a test case. If my view is not supported, the arguments might convince me, or else I usually decide to let the matter rest indefinitely, but sometimes I might possibly decide to have it looked at again in 3 or 4 years. And sometimes a balance is reached between what will be and what will not be deleted. But I never repeat a nomination in quick sequence until chance favors me. The way I do these probes is to nominate an average one and see what happens. I don't think it fair to do them as a group, nor to nominate a large number in the hope of getting one deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again DGG

Look! lets not mess around here. Notability is only your opinion. One that may or may not be right. But slapping a possible deletion tag on the page is an easy option for you. I suggest that if you are convinced of your opinion you go straight to AfD stage now. I am working on other articles and it is unlikely that I will be contributing to the article within your! month deadline/threat you seem to think you have the right to imposes on this article. That in itself shows little WP:AGF and is a bad tone in which to exchange with a fellow editor. At least with an Afd, the community gets to decide the notability. In Good faith, Allways! Cheeseladder (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is coverage in independent WP:Reliable Sources. Your only source, apart from OS map, is the service's own website. You need to supply independent sources. They don't need to be online, but can be printed books, newspaper articles, etc, as long as you give a good reference so that someone could find the reference themself if they had access to it (eg if it's a newspaper article it needs date and page, not just newspaper name). It's not a matter of DGG's or anyone else's opinion, but of WP policy. PamD 08:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]