Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCI Froward Point


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NCI Froward Point

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One of a number of lookout posts that doesn't appear to have a particularly notable existence, other than being remotely involved in various minor incidents ninety:one  22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is a stub, is well referenced in reliable sources, is notable in that it is a permitted use of a battery observation point rather than simply repurposing an old coastguard station, has played a part in far more incidents than the one quoted, incidents for which I have not yet achieved finding reliable sources. It is a working lookout point that will, with the proposed UK reduction of Coastguard rescue centres, become substantially more significant as time passes. It is one of a growing number, currently 44, NCI Coastwatch lookouts in the country, and is part of a relatively young organisation (founded in 1944 1994). It is not the number of rescues and other incidents that of themselves make such stations notable. Rather it is the fact of their existence at all. It does seem somewhat previous to nominate a well referenced stub for deletion so swiftly. Such actions discourage the further building of an article. Perhaps a better route would be for the nominator to find references and add them to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added all the incidents I can find. While I have not yet found media references for them they are a matter of public record. All incidents in such facilities are logged formally and reported to some relevant national authority or other. I'm no expert and have no idea how to find them. Additionally I have noted that the lookout was featured in the ITV Southwest Regional News programme. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment An article being merely being a stub is not a reason for inclusion, nor is the fact that it is well-referenced. Indeed, it's not the number of incidents, but the notability of them. I can assure you I'm no deletionist, but the only way I can think of the subject of the article being notable is if it played a key role in a major incident. The incidents you've found, whilst useful, don't establish notability. Seeing as one of the more notable elements of the subject is the reuse of an old and historic battery, I think it would be quite feasible to merge it (with a redirect)with Brixham Battery, perhaps under a new section about the modern day use of the site? ninety:one  00:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability is not provided exclusively by incidents. It is provided by that notability, all of it, being asserted both in the article and in reliable sources. One of those sources is the ITV Regional News Programme, substantial mainstream media. Other sources, sources which I am adding, will likely be necessarily local, but no less reliable for that. An eventual article on the Brownstone Battery itself should refer to the current notable use of some of the buildings, certainly, but the uses are distinct. By no means all uses of a building or a set of buildings are to be gathered in detail in the same article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: article appears to be strung together from a series of bare, in-passing, mentions [in cited sources] that do not demonstrate notability. No "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The yachting magazine is significant national coverage. The ITV regional news programme is significant coverage. Notability exists both in the fact that it looks after a very busy local area of sea and that it has significant media coverage. The writing style is the writing style. All style issues can be fixed without deletion of the article. I'm trying very hard to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments here, though it seems to me that we have a huge number of articles that are less notable, less well referenced and less well written that survive deletion discussions with a large number of folk !voting 'keep' as a matter of course.
 * It is behind a paywall, but at "0.15 pages" long, it is unlikely to be "significant coverage" -- and no, Yachting & Boating World is not "national coverage". Likewise being a single stop on a TV programme about a walking tour is not "significant coverage" of the geographical feature, let alone the NCI Lookout Station there. And no this is NOT about "writing style" -- it is about CONTENT & sourcing. "Bare mention"=trivial coverage (as WP:N defines that term). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep exceedingly well referenced article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is no longer a stub article. It both asserts notability (and importance locally) and has that notability verified in multiple references, some national, some local. Further incidents have been added and references found even after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s comment above, from HM Coastguard and the RNLI, and a national government source as well and a substantial number of other references have been added. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article continues to be "strung together from a series of bare, in-passing, mentions". Is there even a single cited source that gives the subject more than a single sentence? Maybe, but if there is it's well hidden among the remainder of trivial mentions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) All the article has to do is to assert notability, and then verify that notability. An item can be notable in one single sentence or in a paragraph. The notability is well asserted. The location is a busy location and many marine sources refer to it. It is newsworthy and attracts local news of all flavours, ranging from charitable events to support it to incidents recorded by the MCA and the RNLI. It does that in spades. If you want flowing and gushing prose then Wikipedia is not that vehicle when the article is short. Almost all short articles are bare bones articles constructed of verifiable facts. Many of them don't even trouble to verify the facts they state. Now I have presented you with a short article containing: incidents that were life threatening (you seem to require life threatening incidents for notability, but those are absolutely not the be all and end all of notability); the history of the station; news of local charitable works to support the station; minutes of the local parish assembly meeting discussing the station; the real time weather station for the benefit of local seafarers; the fact that it is a notable landmark on the South West Coast Path and so much else besides. It seems to me that you want it to be involved in a drugs bust, or need a shipwreck on the rocks below it for it to become, in your view, notable. This is a simple notable local resource whose existence and notability are both present, asserted and verified. Now that is as good as it gets for pretty much any Wikipedia article. Now, frankly, I no longer care. I've done enough in any normal circumstance to secure this article its place in WIkipedia and you can argue as long as you like for its deletion. You may even be successful in getting it deleted by your rhetoric against it. You may end up feeling great satisfaction by arguing strongly for deletion, and joy should it go. And, by doing so, you will create a climate where no-one puts other notable articles of this nature here. And you may rejoice at that because you have created what you believe to be a better Wikipedia. But you are wrong. Never mind. The same article appears at Ship Spotting World where it has existed simultaneously. [irony]It will obviously make wikipedia better to remove it from here[/irony]. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that 10 facts from 10 individual sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. Mathematically and semantically they are identical. Articles are made from individual facts, and Wikipedia discourages using a single source. It is more convenient for the editor when all the facts can be garnered from an existing news article or existing encyclopedia, but an article is measured by how many facts there are, and each one should have a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." [emphasis mine] From this it is clear that "one sentence mention"s are not "significant coverage". The difference between "10 facts from 10 individual sources" and "10 facts from a single source" is (i) that the latter is more likely to provide depth of coverage than the former (ii) that the former provides no indication as to relative importance of the facts (so no ability to give appropriate WP:WEIGHT) & (iii) that the former is likely to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines WP:INDISCRIMINATE topics as
 * Plot-only description of fictional works
 * Lyrics databases
 * News reports
 * Who's who
 * FAQs
 * I don't see the article as being anything like any of the things listed here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [1] WP:INDISCRIMINATE (i) states in its section title that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", (ii) states that "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." & (iii) Provides the above list of examples, with no indication that the list is meant to be exhaustive. [2] I see that you have failed to address either: the explicit wording of WP:NOTE; or my points (i) & (ii), in my immediately previous post. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [irony]All very interesting and very amusing[/irony], none of which explains your one editor crusade against this article. I expect you have your reasons, but it is just looking rather like a sordid little battle right now, and wholly disproportionate. Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. You've made some sort of point or other. A load of wikilawyering, and a load of points scoring, none of which are anywhere near the target, that's all that can be seen here. So, just to be clear and to get back to the point, notability is asserted in the article. It is verified in the citations, it's as plain as a pikestaff. It just looks as though this lookout tripped you over one day when you went for a walk and you want your revenge on it. Arguably your comments have produced a better article because it now has substantially better references than it had before, but that is at the expense of my becoming more than a little disenchanted with the attitude you are displaying here. It really doesn't matter how often you state that white is black, it remains white for all to see.
 * You have obvious energies. Why not devote them to something more productive that merits your attention. This crusade against this one small article isn't going to improve Wikipedia, you know. All it's doing is making me wonder what your underlying motivation is.The picture I have of you in my mind after this set of harangues is not, I think, the one you would wish me to have. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "One editor crusade"? ROFLMAO! Have a WP:TROUT & get a clue. I have spent less space on this AfD than you have. So who is 'crusading'> Stating how WP:NOTE explicitly defines "significant coverage" and "trivial mention" IS NOT "a load of wikilawyering". "So, just to be clear [obfuscate] and to get back to the point [ignore policies and guidelines]..." ... [bunch of argument by assertion & argumentum ad nauseum that turns WP:Notability & WP:INDISCRIMINATE on their heads]. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that reinforced my view. Well done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the GNG  Th e S te ve   11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this discussion may have gone a little off the rails. What Hrafn is trying to say is that although it is well sourced, those sources merely contain what are, by and large, passing mentions. Whilst such articles may be valid as sources, they cannot be used to establish notability. The only one that really stands out as meeting the criteria is this. Now, normally this would not be enough, but this is such an otherwise well-written and well-sourced article that I really can't see that it would be at all conducive to the interests of building a better encyclopaedia to delete it. In addition, the large number of other reliable sources rather outweighs any further argument about sourcing. I think a merger might still be the best idea, but I'm not going to get hung up about that. It would be an abuse of process for me to attempt to withdraw the nomination at this stage, when so many arguments have already been made, but I no longer stand in support of deletion, which leaves me as neutral. Note: this is not an endorsement of FF's arguments or conduct above, which I believe to be less than perfect in a number of regards. ninety:one  19:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conduct? What an interesting stiletto point you deploy? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from the obvious merit of the coastguard station, the article might be expanded to tell more about Froward Point as this is a significant coastal feature. We do not have a separate article about it (I've just created a redirect) and so this article is currently the best foundation for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Lots of refs but many are only tangential or passing mentions; I think it only just scrapes past the GNG line. bobrayner (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (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.