Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Mooring Association


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Newport Mooring Association

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

Contested speedy. A local organisation article, with a suspected COI. That's not the reason for deletion though, it's because despite numerous references being supplied and a further search there is nothing hat establishes notability. Nuttah (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The editor declines to observe Wikipedia policy which suggests tagging the article with (see Talk:Newport Mooring Association).  This is a relatively new article as well.


 * Regarding notability, the organization is notable, not as the late city resident John Wayne is notable, but rather with reference to its field. True, references could stand paring down; in some cases one illustrates a point as well as another.  Note that the majority of references point not to the org. web site, but to County, City, or Grand Jury documents in PD which refer to the organization.  Organization is notable not just to tidelands permit holders, but also to general boating pubic which chooses to visit the harbor, since the org. web site provides local knowledge and promotes understanding of local ordinances of which visitors may be unaware...especially regarding sea lion deterrence. Newportm (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no evidence that the organisation is notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Despite the many references you have added, none can be considered anything more than trivial and nothing that could be called independent. is a prime example. The article is a month old, my searches fail to find any notable coverage. Nuttah (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Explained in the article footnote its significance. The Sheriff-Coroner's reply (Carona, Michael S. ''Response to the Grand Jury) notes Newport Mooring Association's collaboration on rewriting City mooring administration policy.  Many news agencies followed this investigation but I have not had time yet to document them. Other news articles are cited, as are links to the organization from the city Chamber of Commerce site and the City Harbor Resources Dept. site.  I'll try to make other citations more self-evident as to their significance, so the reader does not have to do so much puzzle-buidling.  Newportm (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG, they will help you establish notability, if it exists, and save you wasted time and effort. The reference you provide here, [''Response to the Grand Jury] is a classic example of a trivial mention. What you need to be providing are independent, reliable sources that discuss the association (at least one newspaper article, preferably more, about the association). Nuttah (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's one I've included which ties NMA into the mooring administration rewrite process; mooring administration had been the subject of the County Grand Jury investigation.  The rewrite process was commenced to address these issues actually prior to the Grand Jury's investigation which formally suggested it needed doing; it was (and is) ongoing. Newportm (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yet again its trivial. I reiterate the relevant notability guidelines. 'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.' None of the numerous references you are adding are ABOUT the association, and that is what you need to add. Nuttah (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment All I have is secondary sources that directly treat projects the association has been involved with, as opposed to secondary sources that treat the association itself directly, as you note. C'est la vie. Newportm (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No valid hits found when using google news or google scholar and little to nothing on regular google. Plus its a pretty strong COI.  Themfromspace (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - despite the huge list of references, none establish the notability of the organisation. All that has been established is that they exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 30 July 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.