Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Tuam


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Action Tuam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG (no indication that local enterprise group/centre has had significant coverage beyond very limited refs provided). Also wouldn't appear to meet WP:NONPROFIT (non-profit groups are generally considered non-notable unless national/international in scope). In fact, would seem to be a largely "run of the mill" business park. (WP:ROTM would seem to my read to suggest that business or industrial parks are not inherently notable). Further, beyond concerns with possible WP:COI/WP:PROMO motivations for original creation, while the copyvio issues from previous revision are addressed, WP:CLOP issues still remain. (The content previously just copy/pasted from subject website have been modified only slightly). Guliolopez (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi, I am not a contributor to Wikipedia, but in my job I use it to source information on a regular basis. I registered to make a point in relation to 'Action Tuam'. I note the page is marked for possible deletion. I do not understand the issues, but I find it strange that a bona fide voluntary organisation with a successful 25 year track record in promoting a region of 350,000 population (with no self interest) would not be worthy of inclusion. Wereras, almost every County Councillor (the lowest level local representative) are included, most for self promotion. I feel there is an imbalance here. I strongly urge you to include the page as it is extremely useful information to a lot of people and of considerable interest to those in the West of Ireland. Just making the point.... Yours... JR. JoeRyan53 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi JR. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. As a "new user", you may want to take a look at the "arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion" (and the reverse). The principal of "2 wrongs" wouldn't normally be one the community would consider valid in AfD discussions (In fact there's specific guidelines about it - see: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:OSE). All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, point taken on 'two wrongs'. You make a great point and you are right. IMO groups like Action Tuam provide a vital service, albeit at a regional level and within a small country like Ireland. However, Wikipedia could be the channel for others around the globe to learn from their experiences. This would make Wiki a wonderful source of information on real life experience. Yours... JR. JoeRyan53 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to Nom: JoeRyan53 has only posted to this AfD. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

When I added the page for Action Tuam, my motivation was to highlight the work the group do, not to promote their services. Nobody in Action Tuam knew I was doing this. Action Tuam do not use the internet to promote their services. Their website is pretty basic (no blog) and the social media activity appears to be minimal. JR makes a good point in that Wikipedia is an excellent vehicle to document the work of a group with 25 years of serving the West of Ireland. Maybe others could learn from their experience. Poshpaddy (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. RE: "JR makes a good point" - I don't doubt you guys will have more than that opinion in common. RE: "motivation was to highlight the work the group do" - promoting stuff (whether there's an association or not) is not what Wikipedia is about. RE: "Maybe others could learn from their experience". Again, it isn't a goal of the project to "inspire" other community groups or act as a forum or similar for such groups. RE: "Their website is pretty basic" - I'm sure the company that developed it (with which - by own admission - you are familiar) tried their best with it. I just wonder whether there are better avenues open to the relevant parties to PROMOTE it. (Coz this project ain't the place.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tuam Action goes beyond a local non-profit, it is clearly a regional organisation serving a number of counties in the Mid-West of Ireland. A search of media records from the 1980s and early 1990s details considerable coverage in national press surrounding the closure of the Greencore sugar beat factory in north Galway - I cited a front page article from the Irish Independent. The organisation may be a shadow of it's former self, however it clearly achieved notability in the 1980s & 1990s and as notability is permanent, there is a place for the page under current WP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiegal (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a few "clearly"s in there that are perhaps a little clearer to others than to me. Yes - the organisation has its roots in the late 1980s (when Greencore committed a few million to the set-up of the organisation - a chunk of which went towards the setup of the enterprise park). But if there is evidence that it "clearly achieved notability" in the 80s, I'm not finding/seeing it. (Yes, there are mentions of the business park in newspapers and the like, but one would probably expect that for pretty much any business park - which is where WP:ROTM would normally come in). Perhaps if someone might share that "frontpage Indo/Newspaper report" mentioned? Is there something in that that confirms notability beyond ROTM? I don't see anything especially notable in the article currently - however, as the Indo report mentioned (which apparently contributes something significant to notability) doesn't seem to be linked in the article itself, then perhaps I'm missing something. Can you share something of or from the frontpage news report? Guliolopez (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Details from the front page of the Irish Independent are correctly cited, nip down to your local library to check for yourself if you feel the need to read the content. When you nominated the AfD you asked for evidence of notability to be cited, this was done. Stop changing the goalposts. I have demonstrated that the organisation achieved notability in the 1980s, front of a national newspaper is more than sufficient. It took me all of 30 seconds to locate the story. If you don't have the tools to do a comprehensive search perhaps stop wasting peoples' time nominating AfDs. Reggiegal (talk 02:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply- Hi. You mention that "details from the front page of the Irish Independent are correctly cited". Again, I must be missing something, but can you tell me where they are cited please? Nothing was added by you (or any other editor) to the Action Tuam article or to this discussion that (as far as I can see) links or references an Irish Independent article. I would be delighted to try and source the relevant article, but it wouldn't normally be reasonable to expect anyone to search through the ~7000 issues of the Irish Independent since the late 1980s looking for whatever "front page article" another editor might have in mind. I wouldn't consider it to be a "shift of goalposts" to ask for at least some idea of where to verify a cite that apparently builds to originally highlighted issue (that the subject/article wouldn't appear to meet WP:GNG for coverage.) Without wishing to seem flippant, if we're using football/newspaper metaphors, perhaps a "spot the ball" competition is more appropriate - where there is no visible picture, but entrants are asked to guess which newspaper the image might be in. In any event, perhaps you are talking about this news article? If so, then I do note that it is a newspaper mention of the subject - but it is largely a passing reference (where Action Tuam isn't the primary subject of the newspaper article). This doesn't in itself demonstrate SIGCOV under the GNG. (Which is still the relevant goalpost - nothing has changed there) Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I guess this experience has not enhanced my views on the credibility of Wikipedia as a comprehensive source of information. Regarding having to prove notability, the credible press that cover business in Ireland are mostly subscription based (Irish Times, Business Post). The Red Tops are not into business issues. The 'project' should be about the inclusion of worthwhile information and not about questioning the integrity of those providing the information. Overall a disappointing experience and I would be slow to research another project. Poshpaddy (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- Apologies if it is felt that anyone's integrity was questioned. That wasn't the intent. (Certainly I can see how you may feel - given a recent suggestion that I was "wasting peoples' time nominating AfDs". However, it isn't entirely unreasonable (if done civily) for editors to point-out where key tenets of the project are not being followed. Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply- Apology accepted. If "key tenets of the project are not being followed" a more welcoming approach might be to suggest the correct procedure, which might encourage others to contribute. Not everyone is familiar with the correct procedure and many will learn from their mistakes. For example, I am very familiar with over 1000 organisation in the non-profit sector in Ireland. Action Tuam is just one such case. Does my knowledge of those preclude me from suggesting their inclusion.? Many are wonderful organisations and certainly worthy of inclusion, but if I am accused of bias of 'promoting' them, then why bother. Poshpaddy (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply- Cheers. As it's probably more appropriate to address that question/point elsewhere, I've dropped a note on your talk page. All the best Guliolopez (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the news articles, this meets notability requirements. The article could possibly be expanded a bit using information in those articles (e.g. there is good stuff in about renovating and selling space to local businesses). This would help explain its importance. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2015 (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.