Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VEMA High Angle Rescue


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 04:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

VEMA High Angle Rescue

 * – ( View AfD View log )

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Queried speedy delete db-copyvio. Its author pleaded this in Talk:VEMA High Angle Rescue: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
 * This article does have a resembelance to an article appearing on another website, however both this article and the one appearing on the other website are both written by myself and the there is no copyright on the text appearing within this article.--Nic.holmes (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. There are many articles about rescue organizations on Wikipedia, but notability is not inherent. The existing references in the article do not establish notability because one is the group's home page, one is a blog, and the last is not about the organization. This at a weak delete for me due to the mild inherent bias of the guideline: I think an identical organization from North America would meet the WP:GNG but local media in KwaZulu-Natal might have less of an online presence. I agree with the author that the similarity to other works does not justify deletion on copyright grounds here. VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further references have been found, but as the previous comment states that online media presence in Kwa-Zulu Natal is not widely plublicised and unfortunately limited to NewsWatch blogs and related sites. The organisation does however appear in many local news print publications but these are not placed online as well. It is unfortunate that there are a few similar organisations on Wikipedia from North America that have their own pages simply because the online presence of their organisation is greater than that of VEMA's. One in particular is the 911th Engineer Company who only have two references. the only difference between them and VEMA is that 911th is military and VEMA is voluntary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.94.58 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further more, if you have a look at other organisation that are present on Wikipedia, many of them listed in Cave Rescue such as the Irish Cave Rescue Organisation that have a page minus any notable references doing the same or similar work as VEMA High Angle Rescue I feel that it may not be fair to delete this page when there are other pages available for similar organisations.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete although I am open to seeing another article which is better sourced and more in line with WP:NPOV policy. The current article seems promotional in nature, the clearest example is the paragraph beginning with: "VEMA HAR as an organization has attained extremely high standards of service and excellence", and is is sourced to VEMA's Facebook profile. The independent sources mention that VEMA HAR conducted this and this rescue mission, but I have yet to see substantial reliable sourcing about VEMA. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:28, 8 March 2011 (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.