Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Ontario Waterkeeper


 * 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. And could I ask for just a little less panic and screaming next time, please? Okay, maybe the article shouldn't have been nominated that quickly; but that's why we give people a whole week to discuss and improve them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable organization that should be deleted per WP:N and WP:V, as no reliable sources are cited. Originally posted and deleted as a copyvio, then rewritten. Prodded but prod removed by author with edit summary "Removed bot comment".  But | seriously | folks   17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nom above. -- But | seriously | folks   17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [Struck -- see below --  But | seriously | folks   21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance - article includes no more information than is present in Waterkeeper Alliance other than smaller group's date of founding. -Drdisque 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Drdisque Neutral -- article shouldn't have been nominated after 90 minutes with the creator still actively editing. Keep -- external references establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve, before you arbitrarily decide what is or isn't notable, or does or doesn't contain, or not contain, the things you're complaining about. Also, Waterkeeper Alliance is a separate organization that served as a model, not a proxy, for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.  I think user Butseriouslyfolks is acting badly, and he needs to chill.  Thank you. StevenBlack 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sticks and stones, my friend. -- But | seriously | folks   19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your belligerant bullying is not going unnoticed. Please refrain from exercising topics that are nascent.  Thank you. StevenBlack 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Userfy If the editor wants to continue working on this article in userspace, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -Chunky Rice 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep given improvement. -Chunky Rice 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also consider: currently the Waterkeeper Alliance topic is very thin, and is not much more than a stub. Please refrain from bullying this topic until its contents are more fleshed-out. StevenBlack 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve What the heck, no you don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a kitchen. JuJube 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Ah, so there are no stubs in Wikipedia. StevenBlack 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Enjoying your new straw man? JuJube 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Please clarify. Thanks. StevenBlack 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also consider: about the notability of the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper organization, specifically in relation to WP:NOTABLE.
 * In News, for example
 * CBC-News: ,
 * CTV News: ,
 * Google News: . (55 citations)
 * Globe and Mail: 11 total citations
 * Government of Ontario: 43 citations (in various capacities and contexts)
 * The Canadian Environmental Law Association:
 * In the Government of Canada domain: (57 citations)
 * In the City of Toronto website:
 * In the City of Kingston website:
 * and so on. StevenBlack 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, none of these seem to support notability. -Chunky Rice 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:NOTABLE:
 * "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * Q.E.D. StevenBlack 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting your name into meeting minutes does not constitute notability. I, or anybody, could do that just by showing up. -Chunky Rice 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing "significant". Perhaps you should read that guideline all the way through rather than quote just the bit that matches what you need.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; no assertion of notability beyond "famous people supporting"; and notability isn't transitive. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, Coren, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's national broadcaster.  Your advice about "read that guideline all the way through" rings hollow. StevenBlack 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your presumption is amusing. I usualy listen to Societ&eacute; Radio-Canada myself, not the CBC, because I prefer my news in French.  Since you like quoting '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' (emph in original).  Would you care to show us which the the above sources addresses the subject directly in detail? &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, that onus, I believe, is on you. Please be specific. StevenBlack 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as you provided the source and claim it meets the criteria, the onus is on you to illustrate exactly how it meets the criteria. A simple claim that it does isn't sufficient. IrishGuy talk 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You believe incorrectly. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance unless some serious work takes place in a short while. --Stormbay 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: If I understand correctly, there's a five-day period here. Day 1 was wasted fighting heavyhanded hasty zapping, including a unelateral deletion, by user Butseriouslyfolks. StevenBlack 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Delete. I don't find it notable. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper citations for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001
In addition to the network television citations above, searching Proquest and Osprey Media yields the following articles containing Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001.

Even considering duplicates among sister publications, this should lay to rest that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a "non-notable organization".

StevenBlack 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Impressive number of citations. Would you care to point out one that is about the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper as opposed to simple trivial mention, reprint of a press release, or by the L.O.W.?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually added one to the main article, in the "Notes" section, that I found on Google News. Not sure what useful info I could bring out of the cite, but it did appear to meet the notability criteria. Just need a couple more like that, and we're set.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! Finally!  I don't think it's quite enough, but it's certainly a good source&mdash; I'd expect the impending litigation mentioned in the article might have generated more press if it panned out.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Coren, of ALL of the recently posted citations, I don't see ANY that are "by the L.O.W.", as you put it. Certainly NONE of the citations by the CBC, CTV, The Globe, or Osprey Media Group are ""reprint of press release"-type citations.  Forgive me for asking, but what is it that I don't "get" about notability guidelines that you do, claiming "I don't think it's quite enough" as if, objectively, the article should not be granted the benefit and discretion of any doubt at this EARLY stage?  What is the magic pixie-dust that I'm just not seeing in the requirements as interpreted by you?  I think it's pretty clear by now that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has had, and continues to have, significant influence on the environmental and political discourse in Canada at the Municipal, Provincial, and Federal levels.  Moreover these citations -- many of which are not free online from Newspapers (this being Canada) -- are all about LOW acting in its advocacy capacity that I hope to have demonstrated here.  What do you need, a Home-and-Garden profile about the LOW?  What else do you need to be convinced?  Please enlighten me.  StevenBlack 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Who is trying patiently to figure this out).
 * Well, let's start with the Osprey articles. The first one, "Lifting the sewage veil" quotes them as a "prominent environmental group", but doesn't speak about their work. For the third, "Devices help city track sewer overflow", they are again quoted in a story about someone else. There is, however, a paragraph about them: "Organizations such as Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and the Canadian Environmental Law Association have been working with the Ministry of the Environment for years to require the City of Kingston and other cities with aging infrastructure to decrease the amount of untreated sewage going into watercourses." I don't know if that rises to the level of meeting WP:N, but it's close. And so on.--SarekOfVulcan 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of posting google searches and other lists of potential sources, why don't you just pick out the best 3 and post them here? That would be a lot more useful. -Chunky Rice 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Discussion

 * Keep Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a fairly prominent advocacy organization in Ontario, and has participated in a number of high-profile environmental campaigns (the best known of which is probably the drive to prevent Lafarge Canada Ltd. from burning tires in Bath).  There's enough material to create a viable article, and the group is clearly notable enough for inclusion.  More to the point, they are autonomous from Waterkeeper Alliance.
 * (I'm somewhat puzzled by the direction this afd has taken, truth be told. Some people seem to be dismissing the article out of hand, when it hasn't even been allowed to take shape).  CJCurrie 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it fails WP:ORG. J 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like it easily passes WP:ORG, especially in light of teh quote below. StevenBlack 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION: In a discussion with a communications officer for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, the following is made evident:
 * Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know all the requirements of Wikipedia, but there is no doubt that we should be distinguished from Waterkeeper Alliance. There are over 160 Waterkeepers in the world, all part of the Waterkeeper Alliance...however, each group operates autonomously and while similar strategies are used, each group has a different mandate depending on the local issues affecting the water body.

THEREFORE it appears that a merge or redirect would not be appropriate. StevenBlack 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, just find a few good sources, stick them in the article and that will be all that is needed. An assertion by the organization is certainly not sufficient to show notability.  Whether or not they are autonomous has no relevance on whether they should be featured as part of a larger topic or independently. -Chunky Rice 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Notes section now. Is a $450,000 Settlement against the City of Hamilton, a $120,000 decision against Kingston Ontario, and the trigger for a $250 Million remediation plan for Port Granby, Ontario back in 2001 sufficient for all your notability concerns? StevenBlack 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to Lake Ontario Waterkeepers notability? I'm inclined, at this point, to think that this group probably meets our notability standards, but you're really not doing a very good job showing it. -Chunky Rice 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME? Above you said:  Unless I'm missing something, none of these seem to support notability. -Chunky Rice 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC).    Was it me "really not doing a very good job showing it", or was that you being lazy?   It was in ProQuest.  StevenBlack 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the article, the Hamilton and Kingston matters had nothing to do with the subject organization.  They were pursued by a separate organization that happens to have shared a principal.  The Granby matter is only cited to a yachting magazine, which may or may not qualify as a reliable source.  --  But | seriously | folks   06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem seems to be, Butseriouslyfolks, that you don't seem to understand what advocacy work means.  For example, LOW was instrumental in initating Janet Fletcher's Belle Park private prosecution against the City of Kingston, but they didn't actually act as counsel. There are other, similar cases.   They also have a constant presence on the Lake that have led to a number of successful cases.  These are in the annual reports which I am sure you've read by now.   Do you understand the concept of providing legal advice to community groups?   LOW is a widely recognized environmental justice advocacy group in Canada.  StevenBlack 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the subject was involved in those matter, you need to say that in the article, not at AfD. It the article that has to demonstrate notability.  You also need to include citations to independent reliable sources that back up those assertions, not just the organization's own annual reports. --  But | seriously | folks   07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you will find that Wikipedia editors are very familiar with what "advocacy" means, and that you are doing a fine job of it. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for advocacy.  You need to demonstrated notability, not how good LOW is at what they do.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, Coren, can you help me: how does one create a Wikipedia article about a notable environmental justice advocacy group if advocacy is taboo? If you just give me the suggestions, I'll make it work.  StevenBlack 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the below discussion about sources. Delete pending better sources. Sorry but I have to agree with Chunky Rice here. All you got so far is a promotional description of the people and things this organization has been involved in. Slap a phone number on that and we should be charging for the hosting costs ;). What you need is more secondary reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Once you got those WP:N will also be fulfilled at the same time. If people would focus more on WP:V notability would be far far less of an issue in deletion discussions. Here is a hint: The organization is a primary source. We do not rely on primary sources except in rare cases of more of less trivial information that just needs attribution. Read up on the difference between primary and secondary sources and thjen return top WP:V and understand why the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. EconomicsGuy 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Same question I ask coren above: how does one create a Wikipedia article about a notable environmental justice advocacy group if advocacy is taboo? If you just give me the suggestions, I'll make it work.  Also: Can we agree that Yachting Canada is probably an acceptable source of material considering we're talking about an advocacy group for all of Lake Ontario?  StevenBlack 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we have two realiable sources with non-trivial coverage this is somewhat moot by now but the way to do this is to find good reliable sources before you create the article and then add them either in the first version or immediately after you created the article. You now have two examples of what a reliable source with non-trivial coverage is. If you have further questions or doubts about sources never hesitate to ask. EconomicsGuy 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect per others with the same vote. --Cheeser1 08:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone reading the Notes section? That's where ample notability lies, especially items there linking to McCutcheon, Duff, in Yachting Canada. In what section are you expecting to see signals of notability? It's all there, but most of you are apparently not trying very hard to work with me here. StevenBlack 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a breakdown of understanding here. The subject of the article must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources. An article that cites LOW does not provide non-trivial coverage of LOW. So far the only good source is the Yachting Canada article and you need more than that. EconomicsGuy 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that Yachting Canada is a qualified source for Lake Ontario Issues? If not, why not?  StevenBlack 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Yachting Canada article is a good example of an article providing non-trivial coverage by a reliable secondary source. You need more of those and less press releases, brief mentions of LOW and references to the LOW website. EconomicsGuy 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * EconGuy, how about the Toronto Eye Magazine article I linked to? It's non-trivial, and it looks reliable at first blush.--SarekOfVulcan 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that could work since it seems to be produced by a reliable source. Okay, so we got Canadian Yachting and the Toronto Eye Magazine article. That should get you off the hook but you still need to add more sources like that and fewer that are just press releases or references to the LOW website. EconomicsGuy 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (deindent) I agree that those two sources are sufficient to show notability. Now, if they end up in the article I will change my !vote accordingly. For the record, StevenBlack, part of the reason you have been getting a bad reaction here is because you cannot expect the editors in AfD to do the work for you.  If you had been a little more partient and created the article with those sources, it would almost certainly never have been put up for AfD at all.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, please, pay attention. What you write above is REVISIONIST HISTORY. The AfD appeared without warning on Day 1, Hour 2 during first edits of the article.  The article had already been deleted by butseriouslyfolks, whose actions were more consistent with that of a troll than an admin, and I treated it as such until things were belatedly clarified.   I have initiated a mediation within Wikipedia because butseriouslyfolks deserves all the pushback he's getting, and he's not complying with repeated requests to step back and defer to someone I can actually work with.  He's corrosive, and I will not tolerate being bullied by him.  Coren,  you are not much help.  Your warped bot started all this, and from you I got nothing but flip and dismissive comments about the object of discourse. -- StevenBlack 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your general tone is also not winning you any friends. You have been repeatedly warned to remain civil already (by several editors).  You overuse of bold, aggressive tone, insertion of large walls of text, and edit warring are making it very hard of any point you may have to come across.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the distinct impression that, throughout this case, you've spent more time typing than you've spent listening and trying to understand. Your flip comments appear to have little actual thought behind them.  Your assertion that this AfD was avoidable on some grounds is simply ludicrous.  This topic was never given any slack, and you've made things worse, not better. This is not "warring", this is calling your gratuitous cheap shots for what they are.  StevenBlack 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Folks, just a reminder that AFD is a court of last resort. And I quote from WP:AFD, Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.  Perhaps an  tag might have been in order since this was clearly a newly created article that was still being worked on. -- Whpq 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a court of last resort for a number of reasons. (Consensus can change, and if an article is AfD'd on notability grounds, it can be reposted if the notability problems are repaired.)  There was no way for me to know that the article was still being worked on.  It had been deprodded and abandoned for over an hour with no effort being made to fix the problems.  It was not until a few days into the AfD process that the author started properly addressing the issues.  Also, since the author removed the prod (and later aggressively removed the AfD and cleanup templates), there's no reason to believe a cleanup template or note on the talk page would have had any effect.  Yes, ordinarily, I would agree with you.  But after the copyvio, recreation, deprodding and abandonment of this article, I believe I acted reasonably. --  But | seriously | folks   17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the AfD actually did work since more people got involved in the process of seeking consensus which is the primary reason for having an AfD rather than a speedy deletion. Judging from the creator's attitude even after notability has been established he wasn't much help though. EconomicsGuy 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly the concept of a beleaguered contributor, being struck at every turn by wiki zealots, is beyond your capacity of understanding. This whole thing is a sick joke.  First a bot appears, then an unknown user acting very much like like a troll, first deleting the article then effectively "black listing" it, then belittling the object of discourse at every turn, and this is what, normal for you guys?  StevenBlack 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Beleagured? You've been dishing out all of the abuse and namecalling.  Everybody else is sticking to the facts and trying to make Wikipedia better.  You're dead set on construing others' comments about the article as personal attacks and using them as an excuse to justify your own uncivil behavior.  Please step back so that this mundane and unexciting AfD process can proceed to its conclusion without more histrionics. --  But | seriously | folks   17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * StevenBlack please try to understand the amounts of edits and new articles we have to deal with every day. We are a top 10 website run entirely by volunteers. We require that those who contribute articles provide proper sourcing to begin with, alternatively ask for help first or start out by creating an article in user space and then work on it while learning from editing other articles alongside established editors. I'm sorry if we haven't fulfilled your expectations but like I said we are volunteers trying to run a top 10 website in our spare time. Also, please don't mark all your edits as minor, thank you. EconomicsGuy 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article now cites multiple, independent reliable sources that signficantly discuss the subject. The Eye Weekly piece swung me. --  But | seriously | folks   21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SO, when does the AfD come down? Or is this article, and by extension this organization, permanently wiki-besmirched? StevenBlack 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The banner is removed when the AfD is closed. When that is just depends on how quickly admins can get through the backlog. -Chunky Rice 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you stop insisting that the people who, in good faith, asked us to consider deleting this article were somehow out to get you, or "wiki-besmirch" the subject of this article. It's extraordinarily inappropriate and rude. --Cheeser1 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's extraordinarily inappropriate and rude to delete articles, then to slap an AfD on it in its first hours, and to belittle its subject. You may have all the links at hand, but that doesn't make you correct.  A garish banner on an article besmirches it.  It discourages people from contributing to it by clearly implying it won't be around much longer.  Frankly, I am getting tired of self-rightous patrician indignation from some members here.  Of course I assumed good faith.  To continue to do so in this case would require the suspension of disbelief.  I got zero courtesy from Butseriouslyfolks, and I want things put right.  Is that too much to ask?  Apparently so. 24.226.38.121 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (User StevenBlack from an allied machine)
 * Um, that's what the AfD process is there for. The only person who's being self-righteous is you. BSF acted civilly, but there's a number of instances where you attacked and insulted other users. His actions were perfectly warranted - when he nominated the article for deletion, it did not meet the mark. No article should, at any time, fall short of what's required (even within the first hour), and if it does, it is subject to a nomination for deletion. Note that BSF didn't delete anything, he simply started a discussion that has lead to improvements in the article (and, importantly, revisions of the article that make it conform to policy). --Cheeser1 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to share a semi-relevant comment from the first VfD one of my articles went through. We interrupt this process for an important Howdy.

Hi! This is Tom Smith. For what it's worth, I didn't create the page, and barely knew of its existence, and wouldn't know it was up for deletion except that someone told me. My only reason for posting this now is a little bit of good-natured self defense.

I've been writing music and performing (and filking) for about twenty years. I've got seven albums, including a brand-new one just off to the duplicator this week. Larry Niven has compared me with Tom Lehrer; Dr. Demento has featured me on the Funny Five; I wrote the official song for Talk Like A Pirate Day. I've been a guest at about a hundred conventions in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, and have (to my surprise and delight) fans around the world.

And I genuinely don't know what is meant by "more Tom Smith vanity nonsense". I have one web page to sell my albums, and another for my LiveJournal (note that I am not putting those links here); I don't spam, don't overload rec.music.filk, and don't advertise myself all over other message boards and comment sections.

If this page goes, it goes. If it stays, it stays. But I did not put it here. I don't need a vanity page. Is all I'm sayin'.

Thanks, Tom


 * 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.