Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  08:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this list for deletion as I believe this list is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I do not believe that it meets the Notability inclusion guideline, as there is a lack of significant independant coverage in reliable sources, and as the article appears to fail the What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically relating to directories and use as/duplication of website hosting. Also, in my experience, consensus is that there is not enough reliably sourced material to support articles on cadet units, scout/guide groups, etc.

The article in its current form is merely a listing of cadet units of the New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps. Location and contact information for these cadet units both duplicates and is kept less up to date than the New Zealand Cadet Forces own directory on their website, which encompasses Sea Cadet units. Events, night programmes, and education information is also replicated from the Cadet Forces website. Apart from this, the list is only a repository for personal information related to the groups and its members, which would be better suited for a freely-hosted personal website elsewhere, for example this website for Training Ship Gambia.

Google News search for ["New Zealand" "Sea Cadet Corps"] provides only 48 results, not all of which deal with this organisation. Of these, and of the websites found on Vanilla Google, the results are either Wiki-mirrors, unrelated to the subject, about the organisation as a whole, not independant (i.e. cadet unit website about cadet unit), or are generic promotional articles (which can be summarised "Sea Cadet Corps Training Ship Foo made their regular appearance at Local Event. If you would like to join TS Foo, contact...")

Please note, this discussion is not about the organisation itself. This discussion is about the listing of cadet units. -- saberwyn 07:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   —-- saberwyn 07:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —-- saberwyn 07:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —-- saberwyn 07:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it satisfies WP:NOTE, news articles directly addressing the topic with more than trivial mention: Sea Cadets keen to convert old building, ODT, Unsung heroes: Top officer dedicated to Sea Cadets NZ Herald. The article may need a cleanup/rewrite however. XLerate (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the two sources you provide, I do not believe these articles represent significant coverage. These mentions are not broad or significant enough to provide and justify articles or sections in a list for the individual cadet groups. Both sources are the kind of slow-news, community-interest story you get from time to time, that is only printed because there is nothing else to print or the newspaper wants to give its readers the "warm and fuzzies", and only of minimal interest to the local community. I could find similar newspaper articles from the time my old scout troop had its canoes stolen, or the time the head instructor of the swim teaching program I volunteer for was interviewed for one in a series of articles about community recognition, but there is no way I could justify a Wikipedia article on either organisation, as these organisations, like the individual Sea Cadet Training Ships, would not pass the primary criteria of the Notability (organizations and companies) inclusion guideline
 * The other problem I see is if we ignore the notability inclusion guideline and just limit the article to what can be reliably sourced (as policy demands), we will end up with an incomplete list filled with random, incoherent trivia. Based on these sources (and I personally doubt that there are enough reliable, non-trivial sources out there to provide much more information than this) the list entry for one Training Ship will contain the geograpical location, and how much they paid to renovate their hall, while another contains the location and how long one of the volunteer 'officers' has been with the group and how awesome they are. Using these sources as the sole sources for these sections would provide undue weight to these events in the grand scheme of each cadet group's history (not to mention the undue weight of having some cadet groups listed and not others). -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the parent article New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to "List of New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units": Once again, another good nomination Saberwyn, very concise and explanatory. I think if we make this a "list", then it'll just "do what it says on the tin". Some of you have probably seen me on the battleground that is AFD, fighting the scourge of "listcruft". Well I'm more willing to give articles about actual real stuff more leniency. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I try ;) . However, renaming the article does not solve the problems of not passing the notability guidelines, or the policy of only including verifiable information. As per Bduke below, turning this into an 'official' List or merging the information to the main article will either see (1) a bare-bones list of the names (and possibly locations) of the cadet training ships which will be meaningless and an out-of-date mirror of information provided on the the New Zealand Cadet Forces website, or (2) would see the same unsourced original research bloat the article until this is split out (if merged in to the main article) and back here. -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL I think that last IP's edit might have helped your cause ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We should not look at this in isolation. These lists are impossible to maintain. Editors, usually IP ones. come across these and remove, alter or add units from their own knowledge. It is is all original research. This has arisen with many Scouting articles that contained lists of troops and units. We have largely removed them. It comes up with Cadet units in various countries, Boy's Brigate, Scout Groups and so on. They are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Merging to New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps would just shift the problem to there. Some units are notable but most are not, so if we restrict it to those that have been noticed in reliable sources, we have a non-complete list. No, these lists do not work for us. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  10:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete although some of the content could perhaps be moved to New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps. The Corps are notable, the individual units are not. --Helenalex (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was wavering in the other direction until I saw the recent additions to the article under TS Rangiriri and then realised exactly what Bduke means. The article in its present state is open to spam, listcruft and non-notable information. It would be well nigh impossible to maintain it in encyclopaedic state. Unfortunately, I can't see much to include into the main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (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.