Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington University Emergency Support Team


 * 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. I appreciate the sympathy expressed here for the article's creator, but the fact is that many if not most articles that end up here have a "primary author" and we don't want to set a precedent that seeming like they worked hard on it is a free pass from being subject to policy. Also userfication is normally only done if the user actually asks for it, which i don't see here. All they have to do is ask though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Washington University Emergency Support Team

 * – ( View AfD View log )

University EMT station. I'm sure they do important work, but it's no more notable that your neighborhood ambulance station. Yeah, there are 3 WP:SELFPUB references and 2 Washington University student newspaper references, but that's not sufficient to show that it has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," per Notability. GrapedApe (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOBLECAUSE. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and I would feel bad just flat out deleting it. I suggest moving it to User:Gtsiegel/Washington University Emergency Support Team so that he may work on it by adding third party coverage. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, userfy. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or userfy for improvement. I am generally not a fan of college-group pages, but this one seems more notable than most. It has a long history. Many police and fire departments have their own pages and this seems comparable. On the other hand, a look at the template at the bottom of the page finds other student groups that are prime candidates for deletion, such as The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) and Walk In Lay Down. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) was created today. And I'm not sure if its notable. Thinking about listing it for deletion. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed "The Amateurs" and one other a capella group to be merged with Washington University in St. Louis. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Long history and other EMS departments (aka WP:OTHERSTUFF) don't make this notable. That this is well-written doesn't disguise its lack of notability.  And yes, I'd say those two are not notable either.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy for the common-sense reasons raised by nominator. And it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG: the only sources are from the university itself. Terence7 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, for paucity of independent sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This not a question of verifiability or veracity or competence — all of these are evident. This is, rather, a challenge based upon the independence or lack thereof of sources. I do not feel that in this case this is sufficient cause for deletion of an otherwise well-done article. Don't tear down the house to prove a point. Keep under WP:IAR (Use Common Sense). Carrite (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The challenge is not only based on the lack of independent sources, as I and others have pointed out. We're making a common-sense argument, too: a university's EMT team simply doesn't deserve an article on WP ("no more notable than your neighborhood ambulance station," see nominator above). Terence7 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, the standard for inclusion is not "verifiability or veracity or competence," the standard is notability. See WP:N. Notability is not established, see WP:GNG, so it is not suitable for inclusion.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is a GUIDELINE to be generally followed in most cases. It is not an unchanging and unmalleable, but something that must be pondered and interpreted. The basic argument here is OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST smooshed with SELFSOURCED. That's really not a sufficient reason to blow up a competent, verifiable, and factually trustworthy article, in my own estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think our point is that your personal affinity for this article and the amount of detail contained therein aren't sufficient reasons to go against the clear and very well-established notability guidelines, which it now appears you are acknowledging that this article does not satisfy. Terence7 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It all depends on whether reliance on self-sourcing in this specific instance to provide verifiability is regarded as a terminal offense. You seem to think it is, I differ. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but notability requires verifiable evidence from independent sources. That's not negotiable, at least not here. We all have our opinions about whether Wikipedia's notability policies are too stringent, too lenient, or just right, but this isn't the forum to raise objections to their most basic tenets. Terence7 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it IS negotiable here. IAR is a policy, Notability is a guideline — suggested best practices to be followed in most circumstances. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, at least we're clear that the basis for your argument is that you don't think the notability guidelines should apply to this article. Terence7 (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2012 (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.