Talk:Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team

Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team
This article has been written by a member with an insight to the current operations of the team. It is correct in all aspects. As an honary life member with over twenty years experience, the team did start off as a mountain rescue team based on the North York Moors, but has now changed to the urban search group as a relection of the tasks required of it. I don't know how to verify it in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Can someone give me help on this. Moorjock 12:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Their list of incidents for 2007 includes "The team was called by the Ambulance Service to assist in the extraction of an injured mountain biker from a remote part of Dalby Forest. The Air Ambulance also attended but unfortunately could not land close enough to the incident site to evacuate. Scarborough & Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team extracted the mountain biker from the location and drove him to the Air Ambulance which then flew the injured gentleman to hospital", which doesn't sound like urban search. PamD 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The committee of the Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team wish to have the current entry for the organisation deleted from Wikipedia. We are planning an update of our current web-site and along with this will be looking to create a new entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srmrt (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask the administrators of Wikipedia to remove the entry of the Scarborough and Ryedale Mountain Rescue Team as it does not follow the current teams views. Thanks. Srmrt (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you specify just what is wrong with the current article? We can't delete anything that some anonymous editor comes along and says "I want this deleted", without any indication why. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a WP:COI on this matter and as you are associated with the organisation you should read up an this and edit carefully. Blanking existing is not what should be done. Keith D (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging again
As no sections have been added, I've re-tagged, and as only a single reliable source as to notability] is provided I've tagged for notability again. Please don't remove tags unless the problem is really fixed. [[User:Mayalld|Mayalld 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed sections tag because it had the structural tags of Refs and EL and I thought the text too short to need sections (can't find any guideline at WP:MOS on that), but have now added them. I thought we had established its notability, with refs from the national MRC and newspaper article. PamD 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/results.aspx?SearchType=Normal&PageId=1&SearchText=Search%20and%20rescue> for notability.--Harkey Lodger 15:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In reference to PamD comments, the rescue of a mountain biker in Dalby forest is disputed by the Ambulance Service. The team are claiming it but didn't actually get involved. They were not called by the ambulance. The mountain biker was rescued in a joint operation between the ambulance crew and the air ambulance crew. I don't want to get into disputes about individuals, but there are members of the team who are very good at 'spining' stories to make them look good and others bad. I don't know why the ambulance service didn't put the story right! In addition as you can see from the extract from the Scarborough Evening News, the team are searching urban areas and not the North York Moors, unless I have missed one of the extracts. Moorjock 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole of the text has been reverted by the creator of the page. The members of the Yorkshire Wiki Project were attempting to help to improve the article by citing reliable and verifiable sources. An outsider to a subject can sometimes help by providing NPOV. Often articles look untidy before they are improved. Please be patient if you think the subject is worthy of an article.--Harkey Lodger 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted back to last version by PamD, looks like the contributor has some WP:COI. Keith D 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are now four independent references from three separate newspapers so I think the article now meets reliable sources and notability requirements. So unless anyone objects I'm going to remove the notability tag. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)