Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterlust


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Waterlust

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a recently started "social movement" that has very little coverage outside of the school (University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) from which it originated. It's barely worth mentioning as a footnote in the main article on RSMAS. The article was first started by and a brand new account  removed the prod tag I added to the page. This just shows an extreme conflict of interest going on. I honestly don't know how this thing got approved through WP:AFC, other than showing we need better editorial review of the AFC process that allowed a page with only two initial references, one that was to a blog posting on the host institution and the other which is just a link to the subject's homepage, to be approved for mainspace.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(response to comments above)

This is a recently started "social movement" that has very little coverage outside of the school (University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) from which it originated.

The statement regarding "coverage" is based entirely on the references provided in the initial draft for the page. A quick Google search will show that the majority of coverage of this project is outside of RSMAS. A more extensive list of the various outlets/articles that have been published regarding the work should be included.

It's barely worth mentioning as a footnote in the main article on RSMAS.

This is a personal opinion. The administration of RSMAS is supportive of adding an outreach section to their Wikipedia page that includes the importance of student run initiatives such as this as vital part of the research community. Again one may have the opinion that it is "barely worth mentioning" while others see it is as very significant.

I think this article requires more referencing, including a cross-reference with a new section that outlines outreach efforts for the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.

Besides the debate regarding notability....for what reason should this be deleted? This article does not fit into any of the following.

-Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

-Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

-Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

-Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

-Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

-Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

-Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

-Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

-Redundant or otherwise useless templates

-Categories representing overcategorization

-Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy

-Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

-Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterlust (talk • contribs)


 * The RSMAS administration does not have any sort of editorial control over the Wikipedia article on itself because they cannot write about themselves from an objective point of view. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the Waterlust project for what it is, rather than a bunch of blogs reposting the videos. Just because your cause is noble does not mean Wikipedia needs to cover it. And of utmost importance is the fact that this page should have been written by someone directly involved with the subject. Notability is the primary reason why this page should not be kept because it does not meet the general notability guidelines. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability and what I'm finding elsewhere is not helping either. I've found 33 results in Google searching for rsmas, miami, and waterlust, and excluding every single bit of social media I can. Eliminating "rsmas" from the search criteria only gives 153 results.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the RSMAS administration does not have editorial control, though the Wikipedia page that represents the RSMAS community should include research initiatives such as this, along with many other widely publicized projects. I posted a paragraph on Waterlust on the RSMAS page under the research section but it was immediately removed. One of the critiques on this submission was that it has not been referenced/linked by other articles. We're trying to reference it appropriately, but they are being removed. A new section to the RSMAS page including outreach initiatives should be added. Your argument regarding Notability seems unquantifiable. According to the notability guidelines, "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. We believe that Waterlust has attracted notice and that it is worthy of a Wikipedia page. You argue otherwise. At what point does something achieve appropriate notability? There is no clear line and the opinions of editors will always be opinions.— Waterlust 23:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The page Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science does not "represent the RSMAS community". It is a page discussing the research institute. And as of right now, which would be 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC), Waterlust as a research project or initiative is not notable for inclusion as its own separate article and there is certainly not enough out there about it to be mentioned amongst the other research projects being performed at RSMAS. Waterlust may not be mentioned on other pages, but that is because it is not of note yet. It's been around for 6 months and you have not provided one source that discusses the project that is in no way affiliated with the project or RSMAS. You've provided other sources that feature the videos produced by the project, but they do not critically discuss the videos. They are merely showing that the videos exist. Existence itself is not enough of a reason to be covered on the English Wikipedia. If some entity unaffiliated with either UM or RSMAS actually discussed Waterlust (that is beyond providing a link a video produce by the project) and has a level of editorial control over the content that it publishes, then that would be considered a reliable source. The RSMAS website and the previously included Waterlust website are not suitable sources to establish notability. The Scientific American source is a staff blog that does not even mention that the project is "Waterlust"; it just contains an embedded Waterlust video. And ScienceOfTheSurf.com is most definitely not a reliable source, and even if it was it only mentions "Waterlust" in a passing mention, which is one of the many criteria we look at when we determine reliable sources. There needs to be something independent from Waterlust that discusses Waterlust critically before we can even consider mentioning it on the RSMAS page, let alone giving it its own standalone article.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding how to measure notability. You speak of "we" as if Wikipedia is a singular entity that you represent that decides on the relevance of content. My understanding is that Wikipedia is based on the contributions of the collective. If the collective decides that content is relevant and worthy, than it should be included. So far this debate only has two voices, hopefully the inclusion of more voices will clarify how to proceed.— Waterlust 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia community has set up a series of guidelines that decide what is and is not of note to cover on its website. I can tell you from my 6 years of experience on this site that "Waterlust" is not a topic worthy of inclusion yet.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable. No mention on google news, first few pages of ghits are all bloggery and so on, not RS. Greglocock (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The Wikipedia community decides on  what  will  be kept  according  to policies and criteria decided by  and agreed upon  by  th"e Wikipedfia community. This is an upcoming, 'recently  started social  organisation that  has very  little coverage'  that  todate  has produced 6 short  YouTube movies. That  doesn't  even begin  to  produce WP:RS in  number, depth, and scope to satisfy  'our' criteria at  WP:GNG and WP:ORG. What  the nominator has also  failed to  mention  is that  User:Waterlust has a massive COI and should already  have been blocked from  editing for promoting  an organisation  that  s/he represents or is closely  connected with -  also  a Wikipedia policy  decided by  the Wikipedia community. Perhaps in  addition, a WP:SPI  should be opened on  the two editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Newbie here to Wikipedia code writing and also a follower and supporter of Waterlust. I see this upstart group as innovative and novel and something that should be worthy of a Wiki page. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to understand when something becomes notable enough, but I will point out that the Waterlust videos are widely viewed with a very high (98% or higher) approval rating. Perhaps they should get some more articles written about them to legitimize this, but to me its notable as is and something I'm excited to see more of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabmedia (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked as confirmed sock of User:Waterlust.
 * Again, you are directly involved with the project itself. Innovation, originality, insular approval ratings, etc., are not metrics by which we here at Wikipedia determine what is and is not worthy of inclusion. Just because it's notable to you and Mr. Rynne does not mean we here at Wikipedia agree with your determination, particularly when we have various policies and guidlines that say it's not ready.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication of notability, neither in the article, nor off-site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:48, 22 September 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.