Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Area Medical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Area Medical

Remote Area Medical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable organization; had its 15 minutes of fame when CBS covered it once. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - OrangeMike nominated this article for Speedy Delete once before and consensus was to keep it. Once an article has been nominated for deletion and the consensus is NO, shouldn't that be the end of the story? Does OrangeMike have something against the subject matter here? --AStanhope (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • reply - When an editor believes an article is about non-notable subject matter, the procedure is as follows: if they believe it is clearly non-notable, then a "speedy" nomination is made. If other editors (other than the article's author) disagree, they will remove the "speedy tag" and explain why. If an editor (the same or another) is still unconvinced, they may "prod" the article, explaining their reasoning; but ANY editor can remove the "prod" tag (even the author of the article) within a few days. If a prod tag is removed, then any editor unconvinced of the suitability of the article may make an Article for Deletion nomination, where all parties may discuss the question. I was, and remain, unconvinced that this group is any more notable than many tens of thousands of small charities across the planet who never happened to get on a TV show. The promotional/hagiographic tone of the article has also led me to suspect a possible conflict of interest here; but I have no evidence, and have never mentioned it until my own motivations were questioned, preferring to assume good faith instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - I assume that you are talking about me with regards to a conflict of interest. No - no conflict of interest here. I saw the 60 Minutes piece on the organization and was fascinated in the organization. I wanted to find out more and, as is usually my habit, the Wikipedia was the first place I looked for additional info. I was disappointed to find that there was information whatsoever about the organization on the Wikipedia. For that reason, I started the article we find on the Wikipedia about the subject today. It's just a stub - a stake in the ground - but many/most articles here start that way. Over time people will add to it and expand it. Follow the link to watch the 60 Minutes episode on the organization. I think you'll agree that the organization is both fascinating and quite special. --AStanhope (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Orangemike, I understand your suspicions of conflict of interest (though that’s not the case with me, either), but what have you got against this article? You already nominated it for a speedy deletion and some of us felt it was worth keeping, so why keep trying? Are you trying to save bandwidth or something? I hope that doesn’t come across as being smart because I’m genuinely curious. --Flash176 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
? I thought I was clear above. I still don't think it's notable; simple as that. One of my duties as an admin is to keep an article out for non-notable subjects. It's not my idea of fun; fun involves watching my little girl dance at a feis, or cuddling with my sweetie. It's just that there are lots of organizations more deserving of articles, and this one is not up to our standards as I understand them (fallible human that I am). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Roger that. Thanks for clarifying. --Flash176 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - An appearance on 60 Minutes is far more special than "one news appearance." --AStanhope (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, needs secondary sources. Renee (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Remarkable philanthropic organization - was the subject of a 60 Minutes episode. Article obviously needs fleshing out, hence its status as a stub. --AStanhope (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Orangemike has already brought this up once and the article did not meet the criteria for deletion. As AStanhope said, this article does need fleshing out, but I feel there is no good reason to delete it and frankly don't see the problem in keeping it.--Flash176 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Has been covered in Canada, if coverage in multiple countries is the issue. The founder has been asked to testify before Congress. Again, of course it needs to be expanded, but are all stubs to be deleted now? Bltpdx (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability is asserted and 1 Ref keeps it verifyable, so I dont see a problem with a stub sitting around till it gets brought up to Article status. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • clarify - notability is to be not only asserted, but demonstrated, in order for an article to meet our standards in an AfD discussion. Notability has been asserted, but not (in my opinion) demonstrated. A single appearance on a TV show in a single country is a frail reed to lean upon. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Your correct it is 'a frail reed', but then simply because it is not well known does not mean it is not encyclopedic to have such an entry. Standards for stubs such as this, are not as high as you might want the bar to be. I believe that a stub asserting notability is enough, but if you feel it is not, I am sure some of the multitude of GHits, GNewsHits or GBookHits will assist to demonstrate it, as you require. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep CBS covering it in a significant way was sufficient for notability DGG (talk) 23:50, 29 April 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.