Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon High Desert Grotto

Add links
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 no consensus. There is no agreement here on whether this article is merited or not, with disagreement over whether it meets the main notability guideline. This does not prejudice a discussion continuing on the talk page on whether a merge or redirect to somewhere is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon High Desert Grotto

[edit]
Oregon High Desert Grotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local caving organization under the auspices of the National Speleological Society. Per WP:ORG, [i]ndividual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. Only sources appear to be local in scope and no evidence of meeting WP:ORG on a standalone basis is provided. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete article was speedied before and then re-created with no improvement. -Drdisque (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a merge possible? Like to National Speleological Society or [[List of National Speleological Society local? Miami33139 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm not quite sure what content would be meaningful and relevant in the Society article. --Kinu t/c 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you want to merge a national organization with a one of smaller caliber? The Oregon High Desert Grotto page has the references to back up it's influences beyond its local area. The local area as defined here, is Central Oregon (comprising Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties). The references clearly show influence beyond these counties, as far away as southwest Oregon in Josephine County (near the California border), as well as inside the California border at Lava Beds National Monument. The significance of this is clearly posted in the references too. State Leaders recognized the importance of the grotto's work, why not wikipedia? The significance of the grotto's work consists of conservation and restoration efforts for the geologic, archaeological, ecological, biological resources of the caves. The grotto also has participated with cave inventory surveys with the Vale BLM district (as referenced). It must be significant if the government BLM agency organized it with the grotto. And by the way, the article has been improved beyond the original speedy deletion. By far. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar - It looks like it is getting there, but not quite yet so holding off on !voting. The current problem is the vast majority of the sources are from the Oregon Underground publication, which since it is this entity's publication, confers no notability. You need more sources from other media outlets such as the Bend paper used, OPB, The Oregonian, New York Times, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two outside sources is better than none. It's a lot more than some existing wikipedia pages have today, yet they remain. I will work on getting more publications sourcing the efforts of the grotto. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two maybe better than none, but that is not a rationale for keeping anything. In general, concerning your otherstuffexists argument, see the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists essay on why we generally don't go with that argument. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. But the solid references are there, with two new ones just added. I would just like to see Wikipedia be consistent when proposing to delete articles. The significance of the grotto, in my eyes, has been demonstrated by the sources. Again, I will try to get more up later, but errands call at the moment. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added, several more references. Some from the Department of State Lands site, another from Tillamook County, and another from The Underground Express, based out of Portland, Oregon. How many more references do I need? It's starting to look messy! Leitmotiv (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You actually need more. And you need ones that do not provide merely trivial coverage, as outlined in WP:NOTE. Saying the government consulted with this group, and seriously that's it, is not substantial coverage of this topic. Further, cite #13 (Tillamook) is just a re-print of #12 (state library), which means it only counts as one source and should be consolidated, and this is the consulting part/trivial coverage source. The Source Weekly is another trivial coverage source, as the article barely mentions the group as it is focused on Matt Skeels. The bats one is better, but most of the article is focusing on the caves/bats, not the group. Lastly, government sources generally do not provide notability, as per WP:NOTE, you need secondary sources, and government documents are usually primary sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Matt Skeels is a member and representative of the grotto. That's what the article is about. You might want to cross reference some of these articles and realize they all tie in. These articles say more than the government consulting with the group. If you don't know this, you haven't been reading the articles. Surveying, drafting of maps, and management help are clearly mentioned in several. So, seriously, there's more. #13 notes the importance of the grotto beyond the influence of it's local area (which was a point of contention before), so it may be a reprint, but it's a reprint showing the importance on a broader state level. So it stands beside the other with some overlap. The Source Weekly article is about Skeels and his work on those caves. Quickly in the article it states "Skeels was recently commissioned, along with another local caver, by the Department of State Lands to survey a series of caves." No consulting mention, but commissioned. And further in the article, it reveals that Skeels has "duties as chairman of the local caving club, The Oregon High Desert Grotto." And even later, "Skeels knows the cave well, which once served as part of a private landfill on the property. It's one of the roughly dozen that he surveyed on behalf of Department of States Lands in southeast Bend on a parcel known as Section 11." Again, Skeels is a part of the Oregon High Desert Grotto. His work was done as a member in conjunction with the Department of State Lands. To make it more clear... the group, (the grotto in this case), is made up of individuals such as Skeels. The Source Weekly is putting a face to the grotto by mentioning Skeels. Take a look at the bigger picture. The bats article is good. Since consulting appears to be not significant in your case, this article again mentions the surveying and mapping of the caves, which ties in with the other reference previously noted. And per WP:NOTE it states that secondary sources also include "reports by government agencies." You should check the notes at the bottom of that page, where I quoted from. Government agencies are referenced on the grotto page, and are clearly noted on WP:NOTE that they are a part of secondary sources, and not the opposite as you are suggesting. Are you stating that when State Leaders recognize the group and award them for it, that it's not notable? And finally, is there a sweet spot for the amount of references that are needed? I have many secondary sources, some from newspapers, some from multiple government agencies, one from Oregon Caves National Monument, one from U.S. Forest Service, another from The Underground Express, etc. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Frankly, whatever. I've been trying to help you, as you may have noticed I didn't just !vote delete. As to Skeels, really? Huh, yea, I certainly didn't get that from that article or all the other articles he is the freakin author of for the clubs publication I mentioned above about not being independent. So, yes, I read the stupid article and know he is the club chairman. But that doesn't matter, as notability is not inhereited. As in a group can be notable, or a member can be notable, or even both, but they are not dependent upon each other. If the author of the piece focuses on one and not the other, then the one is getting the notability, not the other. Saying the author is using Keels as a face is your interpretation, and I disagree. Having written/significantly improved a crap load of articles on organizations and companies, I have read a lot of articles covering people related to companies/organizations, and this falls into covering the person category as the author does not go into extensive details on the group (such as when the group was founded, where do they meet), and the first mention of the group by name is the third paragraph, after to large pictures. So, to me, that article is about Keels, with trivial coverage of the group (and really it is about protecting the caves).
                • With the government sources part, as I said, generally. As in, not always. Here, one of your sources is the minutes of a public meeting. That is not a government report in the aspect that NOTE is talking about. If you use the secondary sources link, it specifically mentions transcripts of public hearings in the primary category. Now, there are other government sources provided that are secondary, but they provide little if any notability. The state land board one is a press release, and those generally are not taken to confer much notability, even though here the release is from the government and not the group. You see, the government has an interest in publicizing their awards and such, so we give this type of coverage little thought, as it is not really an indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Further, the source is really redundant since you have this article, which does confer some notability (as covered in a previous post). See below for a complete breakdown of each source as of this version.
                • #1: No mention of this group - no notability conferred
                • #2: trivial coverage - little notability conferred
                • #3-6: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #7: An 8:42 long video and I don't recall hearing any mention of the group. If there is, please provide the time point. - no notability conferred
                • #8: News article on the award - provides some good notability
                • #9: Article on Keels, and trivial coverage on the group - little notability conferred
                • #10: Government press release - little notability conferred
                • #11: public meeting transcript - primary source and no notability conferred
                • #12: Government plan - only coverage is mention of Grotto's consulting services. The full coverage of this group in that source is: "Consulted with the Oregon High Desert Grotto of the National Speleological Society on cave locations and protection measures." This is trivial coverage. Not because "all they did was consulting", no, no, no. It's freaking trivial coverage because that's all the source covers on the group. The group could have built 1000s Space Needles and 1 million battleships, and if that is all a source says they did, then that coverage is trivial. All I am talking about here is coverage in sources, not any great accomplishments. If the accomplishments are great, secondary sources will cover them. - little notability conferred
                • #13: 206 page PDF. Nope, didn't read the whole thing. But one, this is another government public meeting transcript, and the pages cited are a copy of source #12. So, no notability conferred whatsoever. Otherwise I could find a source and upload it to 5000 websites and then cite each (the actual citation used in the article should be to the actual source contained within the public record, the plan on the tract, with a note it is contained within the larger source). - no notability conferred
                • #14: Mentioned in my last post - some notability.
                • #15: Part of the public comment period and as such is a primary source (See administrative law and the APA) - no notability conferred
                • #16: More comments - same as #15 as to no notability conferred
                • #17-19: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #20: Editorial by the group's chairman - no notability conferred
                • #21-22: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #23: safety item. Search for grotto or Oregon comes up with zero instances. - no notability conferred
                • #24-25: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #26: Press release and trivial coverage at that - no notability conferred
                • #27-28: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #29: Gov. tour brochure First, trivial coverage of the group, second that coverage was co-written by a group member, thus not independent. - no notability conferred
                • So, the grand total comes to: 29 sources, and 23 of those provide no notability. 4 provide little. One with a good amount, one with some. Thus delete. On a side note to whoever started the use of bullet points in this discussion, we use : to indent on talk pages, not *. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Bullets! Boutmovies, The Underground Express (#22, #25) is not published by the Oregon High Desert Grotto. Where you got this idea, I have no clue. But it reaffirms my belief that you could perhaps be biased on this issue or possibly not doing your homework. One of the reasons this page was up for deletion in the first place was the original lack of sources noting the grotto's influence beyond it's local area. That's why several of the sources are there, including #13. Sure it's a copy, but it must have been copied for important use outside of our local area of influence which you seem to be glossing over. The other main point this article was up for deletion was the lack of notable sources. Since then more have been added. You have stated 4 sources are notable. Four, not zero. But I think it's more. The Oregon High Desert Grotto is clearly mentioned as being the associated body with Skeels in these articles, if not the main topic. Also, #29 is not written by a group member, but Les Moscoso of the U.S. Forest Service and like all interviews with publications, Marchington was contacted for clarification. You might be confusing matters with the contact provided at the end of the article. If you cross reference source # 24 p. 5 you will note Ken Siegrist attending a vertical practice as a member of the Oregon High Desert Grotto. Cross reference it with # 7 and you will note Ken Siegrist again, and you can clearly see his work gating caves to protect the mineral resources. Again, suggesting that government sources are generally not adequate as secondary sources is a stark contrast to your statement that "government documents are usually primary sources," or "not really an indication of notability." That's not what it says on WP:NOTE, as I clearly pointed out earlier, so it redeems several of my sources you are claiming no or little notability. I have plenty of sources as requested to satisfy the two of the original proposals for deletion: Outside the local area of influence, and significance (as noted in the sources). If all you want to do is recognize four sources and not even research the other two you clearly mislabeled as the grotto's publication, then so be it. I tried my best to satisfy the requirements, but apparently government publications, newspapers, government websites, alternative publications (Underground Express), public videos, etc., just aren't good enough for you. Awards, video production, cave management, invertebrate studies, consulting, bat studies, are notable in my book. Vote away. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Since the names of the underground newsletters are rather close (and not consistent throughout), I was off on two of citations out of 29, but it actually doesn't change anything, which I will cover below as they still are not independent). As to not doing one's homework and your other accusations, be careful, as you might want to read #29 yourself again. Their is an add like mention of the group at the bottom of one page, but the only in-article coverage is in the bats section, which ends with a byline, which goes as follows: "Julie York, Wildlife Biologist & Neil Marchington, Oregon High Desert Grotto" which, correct me if I'm wrong says someone named Marchington is with the group. So, still no notability conferred. As to The Underground Express it is not independent, as it is the newsletter of the sister Willamette Valley Grotto, another chapter of the NSS, which as a coincidence, so is this group. You don't get notability by one chapter talking about another chapter, sorry. As to local sources and the like, that may be true as to why someone nominated this article, but I never mentioned that. Local sources are fine by me, but how local they are does weigh in on their reliability and does factor into my thoughts on what are notable. Local groups are fine, I write about them all the time, but the sources I use come mainly from the big regional newspaper (top 25 in circulation in the US) and not primarily from the smaller local newspaper. So, that this group got coverage in Tillamook county means nothing to me (especially when they are not publishing the source versus printing it or discussing it, much like a library in Salem having the Bend newspaper on the rack does not extend the reach of the notability conferred by the Bend paper). And, the second problem with your argument on this, is all the sources are Oregon sources, and some might consider those only local, as you see what is local is up to interpretation, especially on a world-wide project such as Wikipedia. So, nothing changes in my book. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Okay, so The Underground Express isn't notable. And you don't like Tillamook County. The Volcanic Vistas is not just by Neil Marchington, but Julie York who is from the U.S. Forest service and works with the Oregon High Desert Grotto, so perhaps half of that article is notable? Which half, I guess we can't be sure. And it's not an ad, the Forest Service needs all the help they can get to conserve the resources they get, and seeing as how the Grotto works with the Forest service it's a win-win situation and benefits the forest service. But I guess that too is up for interpretation. But the Volcanic Vistas article isn't just about bats, which you may have missed. It specifically notes Neil Marchington finding new species of invertebrates. If you don't know a new species exists, how can you protect it? But honestly, I don't see a problem with the locality issue. It's relative. Have I stated that before? Local is up for interpretation, just like the word region is. For most American towns, under my interpretation and experience (which probably means squat here), local usually does not represent an entire state, especially one the size of Oregon, which dwarfs a lot of countries by comparison. And when relating this to the internet, locality is possibly a moot point. I realize it's relative, but often if you are referring to a state as local, it has probably surpassed the condition of being "local" and has become a "region" as in the case of watersheds. The New York Times is local on a world wide scale. And in my eyes, too American specific and biased. You should be pulling references from a newspaper that is published for global audience and not slanted with a local American view. But that's only my interpretation of local concerning the world wide web of global scale. But then again, that too is totally relative. Maybe someday the Mars wikipedia will cite the Earth wikipedia as too local? But please, I'm done editing the grotto page if its only going to get deleted. I'd rather waste my time elsewhere. Please vote and get it over with. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • One last small thing. If the OPB TV Oregon Field Guide video on lava caves mentioned "Oregon High Desert Grotto" on the page, would that change your perspective slightly? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) If I may interject, the issue wasn't the original lack of sources noting the grotto's influence beyond it's [sic] local area, but that the sources were themselves literally not from outside the local area... that is, there need to be sources from outside of the area where the group is based, to establish that the information in the newspapers, etc., isn't because of the "small-town newspaper printing local interest stories" effect (per WP:LOCAL). So Bend-area newspapers are nice, but notability is best established by something from outside that area. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, but anything non-trivial is helpful. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Underground Express, The Oregon Caves N.M, Tillamook meeting, OPB TV, government state websites, are all from outside the area. Volcanic Vistas overlaps the local area, but goes beyond. Given much more time for editing, I'd find articles from The Speleograph as well that confer notability, and that publication is from outside the area as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I normally strongly dislike articles on local groups affiliated with tlarger national ones--they tend to be a combination of repetitive basic material and promotional or directory specific information. There are exceptions though,m when there is something special to present, with good sources for it. This is one of the exceptions. Local newspapers and other local sources are a problem for local articles because they tend be to promotional, dominated by PR, and the inclusiveness of every possible local object or person of interest. This is not necessarily the case--they can often do a very good job, and spearate out the necessary directory information they contain from the more substantial material. I think this is the case with the sources here. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent organization and do something to preserve the content - either keep it as an old pre-redirect history or move it to a talk-subpage of parent organization or as a sub-page of the relevant Wikiproject, as was done with Bulbasaur, a Pokemon-related article. I see nothing in this article that indicates it is notable as a chapter of a larger organization. The question on my mind is "what, besides the things common to most or all members of the parent organization, is notable about this group." Did it win a national award? Was it invited to the White House? You get the idea. The other question on my mind are "are members of this larger organization, or for that matter state/local groups of this type in general, considered by wiki-history to be given the benefit of the doubt in notability discussions, in the same way that, say, High Schools in the United States are?" Not that I'm aware of. The only reasons I'm not saying "delete" outright is 1) there may be some merge-able material, and 2) it's a decent article, the problem is the subject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article shows sufficient notability of the subject. Merge is not feasible: large text, independent topic. Laudak (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oregon_High_Desert_Grotto&oldid=1070001498"