Talk:Friends of Five Creeks

Merge

still creating the article, there will be main sections on all 5 creeks and an intro paragraph, give me a sec, merge is not necessary, besides google news or search on the organization on the berkeley daily planet, oakland tribune, or san francisco chronicle it is notable in its own right with lots of coverage dedicated to the organization and not the creeks.Thisbites (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

on another note, i was not meaning to start it off the way i did, i hit the save button by accident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that this article (no matter how beautifully written) will meet the standards at WP:CLUB It might be worth your efforts to try merging. It will probably be eventually merged or (worse) deleted. If you merge it, the information and work you have done will be preserved in a way that will still contribute to the encyclopedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD as deletion is not the issue here. The article meets the WP:GNG in my opinion and merging an article about an organization would not fit comfortably if merged to a shorter article about a geographical location. However, if the hard-line narrow interpretation of WP:CLUB is applied, I suggest a formal merge proposal and discussion first running over a long enough period that it can be seen that the article is stable and with few significant improvements likely in the near future. Fæ (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Where to merge it to? Alameda County? Albany? Berkeley? Contra Costa County? Hydrogophy of the San Francisco Bay Area?Thisbites (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably none of these, I'm concerned about merging organization articles to geographic place articles unless there is virtually a one-to-one map (like a small industrial park or a forest that happens to be run by a one-off forestry company). I suspect that Berkeley Partners for Parks might make a reasonable article to create and then merge to, as their scope would be pretty wide (see bpfp map) and it would seem sensible to have sub-sections for the non-profit subsidiaries. Of course Splitting would apply if the article was unwieldy. If you use the {{merge to}} notice and put {{construction}} and {{merge from}} on the new article this would give time for things to sort themselves out. However I suggest sufficient time is given for a real consensus on a move proposal once such a proposal is made; this current discussion is a vague discussion about merging in general rather than a specific proposal which ought to be created in a new section. Fæ (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Dozens of articles on the topic here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect for the work that has been been put into this article, this oganization just does not meet the notability guidelines of an organization, and even the references are from extremely minor publications, some of them actually in house of this organization. I felt like I was being gracious to suggest a merge, as another admin might have just deleted this article outright. I suggest a merge since that way the information might be preserved, which I feel is important for hard working editors yourself.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You are being way too draconian here. You would not have been able to delete it outright and there is nothing gracious about what you are doing. Seems to me like you are just playing with the admin powers you have gotten and are a bit deletion crazy at the moment.Thisbites (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The neutrality of the Creek Work section is disputed. Please consolidate discussion to Talk:Pacific_East_Mall.m.cellophane (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

NPOV resolved with edit by User:MelanieNm.cellophane (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

I rewrote the section as outright removal was not warranted as this is a significant issue effecting the creek.Thisbites (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I walked into the middle of a longstanding argument. OK, let’s discuss this, in true Wikipedia fashion. The bottom line is that the disputed material contains accusations of wrongdoing against the Pacific East Mall.. Per Wikipedia policy, such statements must be very strongly sourced to independent, neutral, Reliable Sources. That is not the case with these statements. All of them are sourced to reference 12, which is an op-ed column (not a news item) in the Berkeley Daily Planet. Op-ed columns are not generally accepted as Reliable Sources. Furthermor the information is not independent; the columnist is simply quoting a letter he received from the president of the FFC. In other words, all of these accusations come directly from the FFC itself and not from any independent reliable source. And yet they are stated as fact ("This is however untrue" etc.). Such one-sided allegations cannot be allowed to stand as factual statements; they violate Wikipedia's policies. It might be possible to redo the information to make it clear that these are simply allegations from the FFC. I will try to do that. --MelanieN (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There, I think the new version makes it clear that these accusations are coming from the FFC president and are not confirmed by an independent reliable source. Comments? If this is acceptable I will copy it into the Pacific East Mall article also. --MelanieN (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your revision looks good to me, MelanieN. Thanks.m.cellophane (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane