Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1


 * 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:52Z 

Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability in question. ghits: NMChico24 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that this group doesn't act under the authority of FEMA, but any individual USRTF does not necessarily carry its own notability. --Dennisthe2 06:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Delete per my above comment. --Dennisthe2 06:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your observation, however, all of the FEMA task forces are sponsored by localities or universities (Texas) and South Carolina's task force is one of the first to be declared necessary by state law (SC Law, Chapter 49, Section 23-49-10). Also, as one of the founding members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, which is a grass-roots organization with over 40 member states and Puerto Rico, this increases notability (especially as the inception of this organization happened as a meeting between South Carolina and New Jersey Task Force leaders).  I also added references to non-TF sites to prove notability since this was all first posted.  I am quickly learning.  But thanks for the input.--Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Please prove notability. --Dennisthe2 09:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't he just do that? Look at the references provided. The team was created by an act of the South Carolina State Legislature, and is a founding member of SUSAR. What more do you want? If you look at my comments below, according to my reading of WP:GTD I don't understand what the problem is. Can you please be specific as to what the problem is? I think Mick has answered all of the concerns that have been raised. MoodyGroove 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * No, it doesn't prove notability - it just tells me that there is legislation that calls for the implementation of such a group. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one: . I'm trying to get some of the rest to come up so I can add them to the article, but I get the impression that these won't be good enough either.--Mick 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC) and here's one from when we sent our first big group of team members to Texas to train at Disaster City: .  and here's another:  I'll have more, just give me a few minutes.I'm not trying to be smart, but I used the template established by the 28 FEMA teams listed on here. Since they don't seem to be in any danger of having their articles yanked, I thought I met the notability question first posed and apparently there's not sufficient evidence.  I'll move all of the references over to the article, but since there should be enough here (which exceeds many of the FEMA team articles) I won't be moving the references tonight.  I'll send more if you like...--Mick 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's significant, but he did more than that. He showed that the group actually exists, and that the group was deployed to a national emergency: SC-TF1 was one of the first state urban search and rescue resources to be deployed into St. Tammany Parish and St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina in September, 2005. MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * OK, provide your references. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If what he's provided so far isn't enough (link to Title 23-49-10 and the WJWJ TV coverage of the deployment to Katrina), then I hope Mick can provide more. Otherwise, I guess we'll have to wait until SCTF-1 goes on more deployments or gets more press coverage. It's a shame because SCTF-1 is a very professional, highly trained, and well equipped state USAR team. Mick himself is Secretary of NFPA 1006 - Professional Qualifications for Rescue Technicians. MoodyGroove 03:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * I hate to say it, but that link isn't going to be enough, unfortunately. If we can find more - newspaper articles that mention them more than just in passing, that sort of thing - we'll have a winner.  --Dennisthe2 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "South Carolina Search Team Sent To Louisiana" WYFF Chanel 4 - Sept. 6, 2005. MoodyGroove 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * "South Carolina Continues To Help States Affected By Katrina" Office of the Adjutant General - Sept. 5, 2005. MoodyGroove 05:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * "An Open Letter To the Citizens of St. Tammany Fire District No. 1" From Larry Hess, Fire Chief St. Tammany Fire District No. 1 - "In all, firefighters assisted in the moving of more than 2,800 people to safety. Approximately 250 of those were in immediate peril. During search and rescue missions with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office, South Carolina Search and Rescue Task Force 1, Alabama Search and Rescue Task Force, your firefighters conducted door-to-door searches of over 25,000 homes and businesses in only nine days. To describe this as a Herculean effort is a gross understatement." MoodyGroove 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * South Carolinians Who Went to the Gulf Coast to Aid Hurricane Katrina Victims Spotlighted in ETV Special "Care From The Heart" Documentary Aired Thursday, Sept. 29 at 7:30 p.m. MoodyGroove 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Annual Accountability Report - Fiscal Year 2005-06. "SC Carolina Firefighters, in response to the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, were deployed to Louisiana under the S.C. State Emergency Operations Plan, Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Thirty-six members of the S.C. Task Force I Urban Search and Rescue Team, along with 22 members of the Greenville County Emergency Response Team, were activated on September 4 for a 14-day deployment to St. Tammany and St. Bernard Parrish, Louisiana. The entire team, which consists of 220 members and is a component of the State Firefighter Mobilization Plan administered by LLR, responds to natural and man-made disasters to provide search and rescue, medical support damage assessment and assist in the coordination of relief." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoodyGroove (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The first and fourth ones will sort of work - the others can go into a references section. They don't mention the team by name, but...hmm... I need to ask questions.  I'm going to switch to Neutral for now until we can build more of a consensus.
 * Thank you. I found out this morning that SCTF-1 was on Good Morning America while they were on deployment for Katrina. I'm looking for a proof source. If necessary I'll call ABC on Monday. MoodyGroove 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * This may have actually been CBS's The Early Show. MoodyGroove 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * "Lending a hand from home" CBS's The Early Show with Tracy Smith - Sept. 8, 2005. "We're brothers and we take care of our own," the team's Kenneth Bell told Smith. "We look out for each other. And we try to help each other. … We've had hurricane issues in South Carolina, and people have come and assisted us from all over the country. So it's our turn to pay back for the help that we've received." MoodyGroove 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * URL for the Video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Janet Smith. MoodyGroove 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * SC-TF1 in the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Delete until such time as the non-FEMA SAR teams have greater notability. FEMA only underwrites a limited number of these as part of the national callup system, other municipalities that want one have to self-fund or operate on a contract basis (layman's interpretation & terminology here), limiting non-local deployments and thus notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that observation as well; because of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, any asset that meets the requirements of the requesting state can deploy to that emergency and therefore, this state team (which was formed by legal mandate) can cross state lines to answer that request. The FEMA system underwrites those 28 FEMA teams, but there are over 40 states that are now members of the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance, some of which have teams that meet the proposed NIMS typing requirements for task forces, and some who don't.  If anything, this team does not respond to "local" incidents, because of the tiered response system; first the incident is handled by the local jurisdiction, then regional teams are summoned, then state, then federal.  There are cases when the incident escalates quickly (a la Katrina) when federalization early on might have been more beneficial, but regardless, emergencies are supposed to follow that chain of events. --Mick 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone want to delete a state USAR team? State sponsorship isn't enough? You have to be a federal team to be notable enough for the wikipedia? That's shocking to me. SCFT1 was deployed after Katrina and did a hell of a good job. I need to read the deletion policy and see what the problem is, but I think you should reconsider. MoodyGroove 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Here's what it says in WP:GTD: Non-commercial organizations: 1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. SCTF-1 has been deployed on a national emergency (one of the worst in US history) and this is easily verifiable. 2. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. SCTF-1 is a state USAR team, and not a chapter of a different organization. 3. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. By definition, state is not local. It seems to me that your decision to delete SCTF1 is arbitrary and against the clear text meaning found in WP:GTD. I don't see the rationale, except perhaps a poor understanding of what FEMA is and what national v. state responsibilities are. MoodyGroove 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * You're actually referring to WP:CORP, not WP:GTD, which here, doesn't enter into the debate. CORP also states the following:
 * A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if:
 * It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company, corporation, organization, or group, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, itself, and reliable.
 * The stipulation per the non-commercial guideline therein still applies per said guideline. We still need verifiable proof of notability from reliable sources - and a piece of law doesn't prove that this particular USAR group is notable, it just proves that there is legislation calling for the implementation of the group.  I'd also like to point out that lawyering isn't going to help prove notability, which is, per the nomination, what is at question.  If you can prove notability, you will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, although Help, my article got nominated for deletion! does specifically link to WP:GTD which specifically links to WP:CORP. These guidelines are confusing to new editors, and it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that I'm lawyering when I make a good faith effort to read up on the process. MoodyGroove 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The links you provide with the "findsource" command aren't exactly accurate. The news archive search yields 0 hits because it puts "urban search and rescue south carolina" in quotations instead of conducting the search with the + sign between search terms. MoodyGroove 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Comment - if you're indicating that you've searched for references using different parameters and found reliable sources, then I would suggest including them in the article. Addhoc 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've provided several (enough for User:Dennisthe2 to go neutral, at least for now), and I'm hoping to add others. If it would help to add them into the article, I'd be happy to do that, too. I wasn't sure whether or not that was allowed during this process. I haven't been an editor for very long, and this is my first AfD process. MoodyGroove 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Please note that I just added an article and video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Tracy Smith. MoodyGroove 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Also please note the URL for the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Keep per above and this search. Addhoc 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MoodyGroove 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Unfortunately, when I was writing this, I couldn't pull up some of these links and used the FEMA team templates thinking that those were sufficient enough to get those articles published. Thanks to all of you who have helped make this a good article.  It's a learning experience, but even if the article doesn't get published, the links you all have been digging up are going to prove very useful.  As it is, in a few weeks I will be speaking to the SUSAR group (all 40 states attending) and will talk to them about this and how to get involved.--Mick 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Now article is sourced, and by it's association notable. --Falcorian (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2007 (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.