Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Cod Commission

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. John254 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Commission

Non-notable local organization. Even though it's a government organization, it's not notable -- lots of cities and counties have land use commissions. This one has done nothing to make itself notable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge no more than a paragraph to Barnstable County, Massachusetts unless this has been exceptionally controversial (i.e. outside of the county itself). We don't need articles on county-level agencies. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Merge~~ (see below) It seems possible that this may be more than just a county land use commission, as Cape Cod (Barnstable County) is a fairly unique place, and this commission was created at the state level. However, I think the burden of proof rests on anyone who would assert notability. I would change my position to "keep" if significant coverage can be found in secondary sources (e.g., Boston Globe) to indicate that this is more than just a county agency. It should also be noted that this article was created by an SPA and remains in basically the same form. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Changed from "Weak merge" to "Merge" per arguments below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to "Keep", as burden of proof is now met. See below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous Boston Globe articles readily available on Google News, with significant coverage including this one, which indicates that the Commission has been involved in a very notable debate over offshore wind farms. Perhaps if the article had reflected its role in the wind farm debate, it's notability would have been less in question? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two separate notes in NYTimes and Globe show an independent, functioning agency. Shiva_eVolved 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these references to the page, so that we can evaluate them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references have been added, for your evaluation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shawn. After reviewing these, I think I still recommend that this page be merged. The wind farm controversy is adequately covered at Cape Wind, and anything else can be mentioned at Barnstable County or Cape Cod. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on 60 seconds with Google News: 30+ mentions in the last 30 days; >3000 press mentions in Google's news archives search. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of WP:Googlehits is not a valid reason either to keep or delete an article. Looking through your hits, the vast majority seem to be due to Cape Wind, which already has an article. The few others are local in scope, and "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:GOOGLEHITS, a section within the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Read it carefully -- it discuss reliable sources vs. raw web search engine results; another essay, Wikipedia:Search engine test gives the topic a fuller treatment. Google News is not a web search engine -- it searches news media. And Google News' recent implementation of an archive search tool gives Wikipedia editors a powerful tool to quickly find reliable sources in about 60 seconds. For many topics, I don't think an AfD should be initiated until the nominator has at least run a Google News test. Like it or not, the Cape Cod Commission is clearly notable. See the references in the article -- the 1989 New York Times article predates the Cape Wind controversy. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per above points. --Shark face 217 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe sources--even the recent sources in GN, are sufficient. Its activities go back further than that. I wouldnt make it a general rule, but this particular commission is notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've only had the pleasure of visiting Cape Cod a couple of times in my life, but it is such a tiny, fragile, and sought-after area -- home to many prominent and powerful people -- and it's not surprising if this Commission has garnered more notability than similar bodies in other parts of the US. This is not a precedent to include every county commission in the country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After my above comments, A.B. added a reference to a 1988 news story concerning the creation of the commission. This shows a general notability beyond county issues and the current Cape Wind controversy, and is what I was looking for. I would like to see much more of this in the article, as it is the heart of the notability question in my opinion, but this is at least enough to keep the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (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.